it"l|\;l;'i"' 

''iiil' 
li 


/ 


f 


»^<^^-«. 


|,  PRINCETON.   N.   J.  "I 


Part  of  the 
ADDISON   ALEXANDER  LIBRakt 


wli it'll  w;i 
Mfc..-tiKS.  R 


pn-sented  by 
'>•  AM)  A.  Sti-a 


BR  165  .M83213  1853  v. 2 
Mosheim,  Johann  Lorenz , 

16947-1755. 
Historical  commentaries  on 

the  state  of  Christianity 

V  Z 


HISTORICAL   COMMENTARIES 

ON  THE 

STATE   OF  CHRISTIANITY 

DURING  THE  FIRST  THREE  HUNDRED  AND  TWENTY-FIVE  YEARS 

FROM 

THE    CHRISTIAN    EEA: 

BEING 
A     TRANSLATION     OF 

-THE    COMMENTARIES    ON    THE    AFFAIRS    OF    THE    CHRISTIANS    BEFORE    THE 
TIME    OF    CONSTANTINE    THE    GREAT," 

BY   JOHN    LAURENCE   VON  "  MOSHEIM,   D.D. 

LATE  CHANCELLOB  OF  THE  UNIVEBSITV  OF  GOTTENGEN. 


3n  tan  f  nlumrs, 

VOL.  II. 


VOLUME    L   TRANSLATED    FROM   THE    ORIGINAL    LATIN, 

BY 

ROBERT    STUDLEY    VIDAL,    Esq.    F.S.A. 

VOLUME   n.    TRANSLATED,    AND    BOTH  VOLUMES    EDITED, 
BY 

JAMES   MURDOCK,  D.D. 


NEW-YORK: 

PUBLISHED    BY    S.   CONVERSE. 
1853. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-one^ 

By  James  Murdock, 

in  the  Clcrk'a  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Connecticut  District 


D.  Fansiiaw,  Printer  and  Stereotyper, 
35  Ann,  corner  of  Nassau-strceL 


CONTENTS   OF  VOL.  11. 


Page. 
The  Ecclesiastical  History  of  the  Third  Century,    .         .         .         •  1-411 

§1.  Christianity  propagated  in  Arabia  :  Orfo'/w, ^ 

2.  Christianity  propagated  among  the  Goths:  Z7/p/n7as,     ...  1 

3.  Christianity  propagated  in  Gaul,  Germany,  and  Scotland. — General  view,  2 

n.  (1)  (2)  The  first  preachers  to  the  Gaiils, "^ 

n.  (3)  The  first  preachers  to  the  Germans, 

4-  Causes  of  the  progress  of  Christianity :  Miracles  and  Virtues  of  Christians, 

5.  Persecution  under  Severus:  at  first  light. — General  view,      ... 

n.  (1)  Christians  often  bought  exemption  from  it,      . 

6.  Severus  prohibited  conversions  to  Christianity. — General  view, 

n.  (1)  Tenor  of  his  edict,  p.  8. — Why  so  many  suffered,  p.  10. — Cause 
of  the  Edict, 

7.  State  of  Christians  under  Caracalla  and  Heliogabalus.— General  view. 


n.  (2)  Mother  of  Heliogabalus,  pious  :  he  indifferent  to  Christianity. 
n.  (3)  Heliogabalus  disposed  to  tolerate  Christianity, 

8.  State  of  Christians  under  Alexander  Severus — General  view, 

72.  (1)  His  mother,  Julia  Mammcea,  favored  Christians, 

n.  (2)  Whether  Alexander  was  a  Christian,  discussed,  . 

n.  (3)  The  old  persecuting  laws  unrepealed, 

9.  The  persecution  under  Maximin. — General  view,  .... 

n.  (1)  It  reached  only  the  clergy, 

n.  (2)  Not  many  put  to  death, 

n.  (3)  Other  causes  produced  persecution, 

10.  Tranquillity  under  Gordian  and  Philip. — General  view, 

72.  (1)  Philip's  reported  conversion,  examined, 

11.  Persecution  under  Decius. — General  view,     ..... 

n.  (1)  Cause  of  the  persecution, 

n.  (2)  Tenor  of  the  edict,  p.  28. — executed  diversely,  p.  29. — 

It  introduced  new  modes  of  proceeding, 
72.  (3)  Numerous  apostasies,  p.  31. — The  Lihellatici,  who? 

12.  Contests  respecting  the  lapsed. — General  view,      .... 

n.  (3)  Martyrs  and  Confessors  absolved  the  lapsed, 

72.  (4)  Cyprian  opposed  to  the  practice,         .... 

13.  Contest  between  Cyprian  and  Novatus. — General  view,     • 

72.  (I)  Its  origin  obscure,  p.  4G. — Novatus  gave  ordination,  p.  4G. — 
He  fled  to  Rome 

14.  Schism  of  Felicissimus  at  Carthage. — General  view, 

72.  (1)  A  party  opposed  to  Cyprian,        ..... 
n.  (2)  Character  of  Felicissimus,  and  grounds  of  his  opposition. 

Proceedings  of  Cypriaii,  p.  54. — Novatus  withdrew, 
72.  (3)  Council  condemned  Felicissimus,     .... 


10 
11 
11 
12 
13 
13 
14 
18 
18 
19 
20 
20 
21 
22 
26 
27 

30 
32 
38 
39 
44 
44 

50 
50 
51 
52 
55 
56 


iV  CONTENTSOFVOLII. 

Page. 

15.  Scliism  of  Novatian  at  Rome. — General  view, 5\) 

«.  (1)  Novatiau's  character,  p.  60,— and  opposition  to  Cornelius,             .  61 

n.  {'2)  Novatus  of  Carthage,  his  adviser,             63 

n.  (3)  Novalian  condemned  by  a  Council, 65 

n.  (4)  The  Novatian  sect, 66 

IG.  Tlu'  Novatian  doctrines  examined. — General  view, 66 

n.  (1)  He  excluded  gross  offenders  from  the  church,  for  ever,     .  67 

But  not  from  all  hope  of  salvation,                70 

T7.  (2)  Novatian's  idea  of  the  church, 71 

17.  The  persecution  under  Gallus. — General  view, 73 

n.  (1)  Not  so  severe  as  some  have  supposed, 73 

72.  (2)  Public  calamities  induced  the  people  to  persecute         .         .  .76 

Cyprian's  dispute  with  Demetrianus  on  this  subject,          .         .  76 

18.  Disputes  respecting  baptisms  by  heretics. — General  view,       .         .         .  .78 

7j.  (1)  Points  at  issue  :  Effects  of  baptism. — Defects  in  that  of  heretics,       79 
n.  (2)  Contest  between  Cyprian  and  Stephen  on  this  subject,  shows 

the  parity  of  Bishops,  in  that  age, 80 

History  of  this  baptismal  controversy,  p.  81. — It  was  first  with 
Asiatics  and  then  with  Africans,  (p.  84.) — Cyprian's  pro- 
ceedings in  it, 84 

19.  Tlie  persecution  under  Valerian. — General  view,        .....         91 

n.  (I)  Valerian,  first  indulgent ;  but  prompted  by  Macrianus  to  persecute,  92 
Motives  of  Macrianus,  p.  93. — First  proceedings  in  the  persecution,  94 
New  methods  of  proceeding  adopted,        .....         96 

n.  (2)  Valerian's  second  and  severer  edict,     ......     96 

Many  Christians  of  rank,  then  in  the  emperor's  household,  .  97 
Cause  of  issuing  the  edict,  p.  99. — Edict  revoked  by  Gallienus  100 
Some  martyrdoms  after  the  revocation,       .....     100 

20.  Persecution  under  Aurelian. — General  view, 100 

TJ.  (2)  Did  Aurelian,  at  first,  treat  Christians  kindly  ?            .         .         .101 
77.  (3)  His  motives  for  persecuting  them, 102 

21.  Efforts  of  Philosophers  against  Christianity. — General  view,  .         .         .103 

71.  (3)  Writings  of  Porphyry,  Philostratus,  and  Hierocles,          .         .  104 

They  aimed  to  lower  Christ  to  a  level  with  the  Philosophers,      .  105 

Apuleius' Fable  of  the  golden  Ass, 105 

82,  First  movements  ag.  Christians,  under  Diocletian.— General  view,        .        .106 

n.  (1)  Maximian,  his  colleague,  a  persecutor,            ....  107 

Story  of  the  Thebaean  Legion,  fully  discussed,  .         .         .107 

Mosheim's  judgment  respecting  it, 112 

Ti.  (2)  Persecution  of  Maximian  in  Gaul,              113 

n.  (3)  Prosperity  of  the  church,  before  the  Diocletian  persecution,    .  115 

23.  Constitution  and  goveniment  of  the  church.— General  view,        .         .         .  115 
n.  (1)  Testimonies  from  Cyprian,  that  the  Bishops  could  not  act,  in  pri- 
vate matters,  without  the  concurrence  of  Presbyters  ;  nor  in 

public  matters,  without  the  consent  of  the  brotherhood,          .  116 

Except  to  ordain  Confessors;  which  usage  had  sanctioned,     .  118 
(2)  Proofs  from  Cyprian,  of  the  parity  of  all  Bishops  ;  the  Romish 

Bishop  not  excepted, 220 


CONTENTS      OF      VOL.      II, 


Yet  priority  of  rank  or  honor  was  conceded  to  the  Romish  Bishop, 
n.  (3)  Reasons  for  creating  the  minor  orders  of  tho  Clergy,       .    «•    . 

24.  Prerogatives  of  Bishops  mucli  enlarged,  in  this  century. — General  view, 

n.  (1)  Causes  and  proofs  of  the  fact,         ...... 

:  Cyprian  held,  that  God  makes  the  Bishops;   the  church  makes 

the  Presbyters  ;  and  the  Bishops  makes  the  Deacons,    . 
On  these  principles  he  subverted  the  constitution  of  the  ancient 

church, 

And  his  views  spread  and  prevailed  every  where, 

25.  Tlie  morals  of  the  Clergy. — General  view,       ...... 

n.  (1)  Complaints  of  the  corruption  of  the  Clergy, 
n.  (2)  Cohabitation  of  unmarried  priests  with  females,  disapproved. 
How  apologised  for,  

26.  State  of  learning,  and  the  Christian  writers,  in  this  cent. — General  view, 

n.  (1)  Proof  that  human  learning  was  undervalued,  . 

n.  (2)  Works  of  the  Greek  Fathers. — Origen,  .... 

Julius  Africanus,  Dionysius  Alex,  and  Hippolytus,  . 

Gregory  of  Neocaesarea,  Thaumaturgus,  .... 

n.  (3)  Works  of  the  Latin  Fathers. — Cyprian,      .... 

Minutius  Felix  and  Arnohius,        ....*. 

27.  Philosophising  Theologians :  Origen. — General  view,     .... 


(1)  Origen  a  great  man.  Deservedly  praised  much  and  censured  much,  144 


Huet  defends  him,  in  his  Origeniana,  .... 

Other  apologists  for  Origen,     ....... 

Origen  truly  great,  in  a  moral  view,  ..... 

More  learned  than   profound,  p.  149. — A  disciple  of  Ammonius 
Saccas,      ......... 

Origen's  i)hilosophic  principles,    ....*. 

His  views  of  the  connexion  of  philosophy  with  Christianity, 
His  system  of  theology  ; — the  Trinity,         .... 

Person  of  Christ,  p.  160. — Object  of  Christ's  mission, 

Idea  of  the  Atonement, 

26.  Origen^s  allegorical  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures. — General  view, 
n.  (1)  How  far  Origen  the  author  of  this  mode  of  interpretation. 
Causes  leading  him  to  adopt  it,       .         .         .         . 
His  system  of  interpretation  stated  in  xviii  Propositions, 
Seven  Rules  for  the  application  of  his  principles, 
n.  (2)  Account  of  Origen's  Hexapla,  .         .  .         . 

29.  Origen^s  mystic  theology. — General  view,         ..... 

n.  (1)  He  held  all  tho  fundamental  principl-s  of  mystic  theology. 

His  principles  stated  in  xxi  Propositions, 
n.  (2)  Rise  of  Eremitism,  examined. — Paul  of  Thcbais,  &c. 

30.  Origen's  contests  with  his  Bishop. — General  view, 

n.  (1)  Causes  of  disagreement,  and  history  of  the  contest, 

31.  Discussions  concerning  the  Trinity  and  the  Person  of  Christ. — General  view 

n.  (1)  Councils  condemned  Unitarianism  but  did  not  define  Trinity  in 
Unity, 

32.  The  Noetian  controversy. — General  view,         .... 


Paga. 
123 
127 
128 
128 

131 

134 
137 
137 
138 
138 
139 
141 
141 
141 
141 
142 
142 
142 
143 


145 

147 
148 

150 
150 
1.^4 
159 
161 
164 
165 
166 
170 
173 
181 
169 
190 
190 
191 
198 
200 
201 
209 

210 
210 


VI 


CONTENTS     OF     VOL.    II. 


PaL'G. 
n.  (1)  Sources  of  knowledge  of  it,  and  account  of  the  man,  .  210 

n.  (2)  His  sj-stem  examined  and  fully  stated,  .         .         .        .         210 

n.  (3)  Inwhat  sense  he  was  a  Patripassian,  ....     215 

33.  Sahcllius,  and  the  Sabellians. — General  view, 215 

V  (1)  History  of  tlie  man,  and  of  the  controversy,        ....     21G 

71,  (2)  The  common  statement  of  Sabellius' views,    ....         217 

His  principles  examined,  and  correctly  stated  in  vi.  Propositions,      217 

34.  Bcryllus  of  Bostra. — General  view, 225 

H.  (1)  Eusebius' account  examined.     The  views  of  Beryllus  stated,      .     226 

35    Paul  of  Samosata. — General  view, 228 

7j.  (1)  His  personal  character  examined,      ......     229 

His  office  of  Ducenarius  Procurator  explained,  .  .  .  230 
71.  (2)  Full  account  of  the  documents  concerning  him,  .         .         .     232 

His  opinions  stated  in  xiv.  Propositions, 233 

n.  (3)  Proceedings  of  Councils  against  him, 239 

36.  The  Arabians,  whom  Origcn  reclaimed. — General  view,  .         ,         .         242 

n.  (1)  Their  opinions  stated,         ^ 243 

37.  Benefits  to  Christianity  from  Philosophy,  in  three  particulars,  .         ,         .         243 

38.  Chiliasm  Vanquished. — General  view,  .......     244 

n.  (1)  History  of  Chiliasm  in  the  early  church,  ....         245 

Derived  from  the  Jews,  p.  245. — Spread  unrebuked  in  the  2d 

Century,  p.  246. — but  was  depressed  in  the  3d  Century, 
Assailed  by   Origen,  p.  247. — Defended  by   Nepos,   p.  248. — 
Different  systems  of  it,  p.  249. — Dioriysius  of  Alexandria 
nearly  exterminated  it, 

39.  The  rise  of  Manichajism. — General  view,         ...... 

n.  (1)  Manes  a  prodigy  of  a  man; — greatly  resembled  Mahommed, 

Ancient  documents,  p  252 — and  modern  writers  on  Manichaeism,  254 

40.  Tiic  life  and  labors  of  Manes. — General  view,  .....         255 

Tj.  (1)  His  name,  p.  257. — His  history,  according  to  the  Gr.&  Lat.  writers,  257 
His  history,  according  to  the  Oriental  Writers,  ....     258 

Which  account  most  credible,  p.  259. — Details  of  the  Oriental 
account,       .......... 

71.  (2)  Manes  held,  that  Christ  taught  the  way  of  salvation  imperfectly, 
and  that  he  promised  to  send  the  Paraelete,  i.  e.  Ma7ies,  to  give 
the  world  more  full  instruction,  .  .         •         . 

Of  course,  his  office  was,  (I)  To  purge  the  existing  cliristianity 
from  its  corruptions  ;— and  (II)  to  perfect,  or  supply  its  defi- 
ciencies,        •         •..... 

Arguments,  by  which  he  supported  his  claims, 
n.  (3)  He  discarded  the  O.  Test,  altogether  ;  and  held  the  N.  Test,  to 

be  so  corrupted  that  it  was  not  a  safe  guide, 
u.  (4)  The  liema,  or  anniversary  of  Manes'  death,  how  observed,     . 

41.  His  two  eternal  Worlds,  and  two  eternal  Lords.— General  view, 

71.  (1)  His  mode  of  substantiating  his  doctrines 

^cau.soferp's  History  of  Manichtnism,  criticised,  . 

Manes  followed  the  Persian  philosophy,  and  maintained  twofrst 

principles  of  all  things,  and  two  Lords,     ....         276 


247 


250 
251 
252 


2  59 


262 


266 
268 

269 
274 
275 
275 
275 


CONTENTSOrVOL.il.  \i\ 

Pag(5. 
n.  C2)  Full  description  of  both  worlds,  and  of  tho  five  elements  andyiwe 

provinces  in  cacli,      ........         270 

n.  (3)  The  two  eternal  and  self-existing  Lords  of  these  worlds  ;  their 

characters  compared  and  contrasted, 283 

42.  Nature  and  attributes  of  the  good  God  — General  view,    ....         287 

n.  (1)  Maues^   own  description  of  him. — I.  His  substance  is  the  pueest 

light,  and  without  form, 287 

Yet,  II.  he  has  perception  and  knowledge,      ....         288 

III.  He  has  xii.  Members,  or  masses  of  light,  revolving  through 

his  world  and  representing  himself, 288 

IV.  He  has  innumerable  Saecula,  Mons,  or  luminous  bodies  is- 
suing from  him,  and  acting  as  his  ministers,  .         .         .     289 

V.  He  is  himself  not  omnipresent, 290 

VI.  His  moral  attributes  are  perfect  ;  but  neither  his  knowledge, 

nor  his  power,  is  infinite,  .         •         .         .         .         .         291 

43.  The  Manicha3an  Trinity.     Christ  and  the  H.  Sp. — General  view,         .         .     292 

n.  (1)  He  held  a  sort  of  Trinity  ;  but  diverse  from  that  of  the  Christians,  293 
n.  (2)  The  Son  of  God  a  shining  mass,o{  the  same  substance  with  God 

and  having  the  same  attributes  in  a  lower  degree,  .         .     295 

He  resides  in   the  sun,  but  his  influence  extends  to  the  moon,      296 
Hence  some   worship    was  paid  to  the   sun   and  moon. — This 

point  discussed,  ........         293 

n.  (3)  The  H.  Spirit  is  another  shining  mass,  an  efilux  from  God,  re- 
siding in  the  ether.     He  enlightens  and  moves  the  minds  of 

men,  and  fructifies  the  earth, 302 

n.  (4)  Manes'  doctrine  of  the  Son  and  the  II.  Sp.  coincided  with  the 

Persian  doctrine  of  Mithras  and  the  Ether,  ....     303 

44.  War  of  the  Prince  of  darkness  on  the  Prince  of  light. — General  view,         .         304 

n.  (1)  The  Prince  of  darkness  ignorant  of  God  and  of  the  world  of 
light,  till  an  accidental  discovery  of  them  led  him  to  assail 
them  for  plunder, 305 

On  seeing  the  enemy,  God  produced  the  Mother  of  Lfe,  and  she 
produced  the  First  Man,  a  giant  in  human  form,  whom  God 
sent  as  generalissimo  to  expel  the  Prince  of  darkness  and  his 
forces,  ........••     306 

First  Man  was  directed  to  use  artifice  rather  than  force,  and  to 

bait  the  Demon  with  good  matter, 308 

First  Man  did  so,  p.  309  — And  the  plan  succeeded  in  part,  310 

But  unexpectedly,  some  sad  consequences  resulted  ;  for  I.  four  of 
the  celestial  elements  became  combined  with  the  base  ele- 
ments ;  and  many  souls  were  captured  by  the  Demons,  •     310 

II.  The  Prince  of  Darkness  devoured  Jesus,  the  sou  of  the  First 
Man, 311 

Miinichaeans  held  to  two  Jesuses,  a  passive  and  impassive,  .     311 

III.  First  Man  was  near  being  conquered. — p.  313. — and  God 
sent   another  general,  the  Living  Spirit,  a  luminous  mass, 

.  Til 

issuing  from  himself,  .         .  .         ,         .         ji-* 

The  origin  of  our  noxious  animals,  .         .  .         .     J14 


VUl  CONTENTS      OF      VOL.11. 

Page. 

The   wliole   fable   was  devised   to   account  for  tlie  junction  of 

celestial  souls  with  material  bodies,  ....     315 

45.  Origin,  composition,  and  character  of  Man. — General  view,       .  .         31G 

n.  (1)  Manes'  account  of  Adam's  origin  from  Satan,  is  to  be  taken  lite- 
rally, and  not,  as  Beausobre  supposed,  allegorically,  •         317 

Jlfunf*' own  statement,  at  large,  ...  .     317 

Aiigustines'  more  brief  statement,  .         .         .         .         .         318 

Adam  was  produced  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  war,  and 
before  the  victory  of  the  Living  Spirit  and  the  creation  of 
our  world,     .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         •         .319 

Tlie  design  of  Satan  was,  to  retain  possession  of  captured  souls, 

and,  by  them,  to  enlarge  his  empire,  ....         321 

Adam  was  a  giant,  and  bore  the  likeness  of  the  First  Man,  and 

also  of  the  Prince  of  darkness, 321 

Manes'  opinion  of  the  nature  and  origin  of  human  souls,       .         .     322 

The  origin  and  character  of  Eve, 322 

n.  (2)  Manes'  ideas  of  Adam's  first  sin  examined,         ....     323 

Statements  of  Tijrho,  Manes,  and  Augustine,        .         .         .         323 

Tiie  facts  drawn  out  and  arranged,  324 

n.  (3)  Manes  believed  man  to  be  composed  of  three  parts  ;  viz.  a  sinful 
body  derived  from  the  body  of  the  Prince  of  darkness,  p.  325. 
— and  two  souls  :  the  one  evil,  lustful,  and  propagated  from 
the  Prince  of  darkness  ; — the  other  of  celestial  origin,  un- 
changeably good,  communicated  from  parents  to  their  children,    327 

Hence,  only  the  evil  soul  commits  sin  ;  and  the  good  soul  is  de- 
linquent only  in  not  restraining  its  evil  associate,  .  .  328 
4G.  Formation  of  this  world.  Its  structure  and  design. — General  view,  .  .  330 
71.  (1)  By  God's  command,  the  Living  Spirit  framed  our  world,  to  be 
the  residence  of  men,  until  their  celestial  souls  are  prepared 
for  heaven  ;  p.  330. — and  to  give  opportunity  for  rescuing  the 
celestial  matter  now  mixed  with  the  base  matter,  .         .     331 

This  world  is  composed  of  the  same  elements,  a  little  deteriorated, 
as  the  heavenly  world,  and  similarly  arranged  ;  so  that  this  our 
world  is  a  a  picture  or  image  of  the  heavenly  world,  .         332 

n.  (2)  The  matter  of  our  world,  when  it  was  rescued  from  the  Prince  of 
darkness,  consisted  of  celestial  elements,  either  pure  or  defiled 
with  a  mixture  of  evil  matter, 333 

Of  the  pure  and  good  fire  and  good  light,  tho  sun  was  formed  ; 
and  of  the  pure  and  good  water,  the  ?noon,  .         .         .     333 

Of  the  good  air,  probably,  the  ether  of  our  world  was  formed,      .     333 

Of  the  matter  slightly  contaminated,  our  heavens  and  the  stars 
were  formed, 334 

The  earth  was  formed  of  the  celestial  matter,  which  was  debased 
and  pervaded  by  evil  matter, 334 

The   bad   matter  not  combined  with  good  matter,  was  excluded 
from  our  world,  and  separated  by  a  wall  or  barrier,         .         .     334 
o.  (3)  Before  he  created  our  world,  the  Living  Sjnrit  imprisoned  the 

Demons  in  the  air  and  the  stars, 334 


CONTENTSOFVOL.il.  ix 

Tngc. 

But  still  they  are  mischievous.     They  seduce  men  to  sin,  and 

propagate  idolatry,  which  is  the  worship  of  themselves,    .         336 

They  also  send  on  us   tempests,  earthquakes,  pestilences,  and 

wine,  333 

n.  (4)  Our  world  is  borne  up  by  a  huge  giant  called  Otnophorus,  who 

is  assisted  by  another,  called  Splenditenens,          .         .         .     338 
47    The  mission  and  offices  of  Christ. — General  view,  .....         340 
n.  (1)  Christ's  mission  had   two  objects  ; — first,  to  accelerate  the  re- 
covery of  souls  from  defilement, — and,  secondly,  to  relieve 
the  wearied  Otnophorus, 342 

He  came  from  the  sun,  and  assumed  the  shadow  of  a  man,       .     342 

His  body  needed  no  sustenance,  and  no  rest.     He  wrought 

miracles ; 344 

And  instructed  mankind,  .......     345 

The  Demon  incited  the  Jews  to  kill  him  :  but,  having  no  body, 

he  could  not  die, 345 

Of  course,  the  Manichteans  did  not  observe  the  festival  of 
Christ's  nativity ;  nor  make  much  account  of  that  of  his 
death,  347 

48.  Christ  as  the  Saviour  of  men. — General  view, 349 

n.  (1)  Manichaeans  used  the  Bible  language  respecting  Christ:  but 

Christ  could  not  die  ;  and  sinless  souls  needed  no  atonement,  350 
A  celestial  soul  can  never  be  contaminated  ;  but  it  may  be  cri- 
minally negligent,  and  so  need  to  repent  and  be  forgiven,      .  351 
n.  (2)  Christ  taught  men  the  truth,  and  showed  them  how  to  purify 

themselves  for  a  return  to  God, 353 

The  severe  bodily  mortifications  of  the  Manichaeans,        .         .  353 
They  reduced  all  moral  duties  to  three  heads,  called  Signacula,  356 
The  duties  belonging  to  the  Signaculum  of  the  mouth,  enume- 
rated,              357 

Those  belonging  to  the  Signaculum  of  the  hands,  described,  361 

Those  of  the  bosom,  all  related  to  sexual  pleasures,  .         .  365 

49.  The  return  of  souls  to  the  world  of  light. — General  view,     ....  366 

n.  (1)  The  H.  Spirit  aids  souls  in  freeing  themselves  from  defilement,  367 

n.  (2)  Repentance  atones  for  the  involuntary  sins  of  celestial  souls,      .  368 
n.  (3)  The  return  of  souls,  at  death,  to  the  world  of  light ;  and  their 

double  purgation,  first  in  the  moon,  and  then  in  the  sun,  369 
n.  (4)  The  bodies  return  to  their  kindred  earth,  and  will  never  be  re- 
suscitated,             .........  372 

50.  Condition  of  unpurgated  souls  after  death. — General  view,       .        .         .  373 

n.  (1)  If  not  exceedingly  faulty,  they  will  pass  into  other  bodies,  of  men, 

or  brutes,  or  vegetables, 373 

n.  (2)  This  transmigration  is  disciplinary  or  reformatory.     The  rules 

of  it, 377 

51.  Liberation  of  the  Passive  Jcsu5. — General  view, 379 

n.  (1)  The  scattered  particles  of  celestial  matter  are  drawn  up,  purgat- 

ed  in  the  sun,  and  returned  to  the  world  of  light,  •         •     380 

n.  (2)  The  Passive  Jasus,  or  son  of  First  Man,  whom  the  Donioua 


Z  CONTENTS      OF      VOL      II. 

rage, 
devoured,  is  strangely  sweated  out  of  them,  and  then  rescued 
from  defiling  matter  and  saved,  .....         380 

52    End  of  this  world,  or  the  consummation  of  all  things.— General  view,  .     385 

71.  (1)  When  most  of  the  souls  and  of  the  celestial  matter,  now  defiled 
by  gross  matter,  shall  have  been  rescued,  this  world  will  be 
burned  up,  and  the  demons  sent  back  to  the  world  of  darkness,  386 
fi.  (2)  The  irreclaimable  souls  will  be  stationed  on  the  frontiers  of  the 
world  of  light,  as  a  guard,  to  prevent  future  inroads  of  the 
Demons,  .........    387 

Our  reasons  for  dwelling  so  long  on  the  Manichagan  system,    .         388 
The  general  character  of  this  system, 3S9 

53.  The  public  Worship  of  the  Manichseans. — General  view,         .         .         .         389 

Tj.  (1)  They  had  no  temples  or  altars,  no  images,  and  no  love-feasts. 

Their  worship  was  very  simple,  and  quite  unobjectionable. 

Prayers,  hymns,  reading  their  sacred  books,  and  exhortations, 
with  their  annual  festival  of  Bema,  and  Sunday  fasts  and  as- 
semblies, were  the  substance  of  it, 390 

54.  The  private  worship  of  the  ^Zect — General  view,    .....         391 

7j.  (1)  No  Auditor  was  admitted  to  this  worship  of  the  Elect,       .         .391 
n.  (2)  In  it.  Baptism  was  administered  to  such  of  the  Elect  as  de- 
sired it.    But  it  was  not  regarded  as  obligatory  on  them  all,      392 
n.  (3)  They  observed  the  Lord's  Supper :  but  in  what  manner  is  un- 
known,   396 

55.  Constitution  of  their  Church. — General  view, 398 

n.  (1)  A  Pontiff,  with  xii  Magistri,  presided  ovea  Ixxii  Bishops ,  and 
under  each  Bishop,  were  Presbyters,  Deacons  and  Evange- 
lists :  all  from  among  the  Elect, 399 

n.  (2)  The  community  was  divided  into  two  Classes  ; — the  Elect  or 
Perfect,  a  very  small  Class,  and  subjected  to  a  most  rigorous 
discipline  ; — and  the  Auditors  or  Catechumens,  who  married, 
pursued  worldly  occupations,  and  lived  much  like  other  people,    399 

56.  The  sect  of  the  Hieracites. — General  view, 404 

Ti.  (1)  Character,  life,  and  doctrines  of  Hierax,  ....         405 

I.  He  regarded  the  whole  Bible  as  inspired  ;  and  wrote  allegor- 

ical comments  on  it,      .         .         .         .         .         .         .         ,     405 

II.  Respecting  God  and  the  Trinity,  he  was  orthodox,     .         .         407 

III.  He  considered  Melchisedek  as  a  representative  of  the  Holy 
Spirit, «...     407 

IV.  Christ,  he  supposed,  merely  taught  a  stricter  morality  than 
Moses, 408 

V.  He  forbid  marriage,  flesh,  wine,  and  all  pleasures,      .         .         408 

VI.  Hierax  taught  that  marriage  was  allowed  under  the  O.  Test, 
but  is  unlawful  under  the  N.Test. — Yet  he  probably  allowed 

the  imperfect  among  his  disciples  to  marry,  .         .         .     408 

VII.  The  Mosaic  history  of  Paradise,  he  regarded  as  an  allegory,    409 

VIII.  He  enjoined  a  very  austere  life  on  his  followers,    .         .         410 

IX.  He  denied  the  resurrection  of  the  body,         .         .         .         .410 

X.  He  excluded  from  heaven  all  who  died  in  infancy,     .        .        410 


CONTENTS      OF      VOL. 


XI 


Page. 

Tlie  Ecclesiasticdl  History  of  the  Fourth  Century^       412-481 

1.  The  Pagan  Priests  urge  a  new  Persecution. — General  view,       .        .         .        412 

n.  (1)  Flourishing  state  of  the  church,  and  the  character  of  the  empe- 
rors, when  the  century  commenced,     ,  .         .         .         -412 
The  alarmed  priests  plotted  the  destruction  of  the  Christians,  and 

appealed  to  the  superstition  of  Diocletian,      .         .         •         .414 

2.  Maximian  Galerius,  from  ambitious  motives,  urged  Diocletian  to  persecute  the 

Christians. — General  view, 416 

n.  (1)  Maximian,  rather  than  Diocletian,  the  author  of  this  persecution,  417 
The  causes  of  it,  p.  417.— It  commenced  in  the  year  303,  at 

Nicomedia, 420 

Hierocles  an  adviser  of  it.  p.  421. — Diocletian  reluctantly  con- 
sented,    422 

Contents  of  the  first  imperatorial  edict, 422 

T?.  (2)  The  proceedings  under  this  edict, 426 

3.  The  first  year  of  the  persecution. — General  view, 428 

n.  (1)  Two  fires  in  the   palace  of  Nicomedia,  falsely  charged    upon   the 

Christians,  cause  many  of  them  to  be  put  to  death,         .         .    428 
71.  (2)  These  fires,  and  political  disturbances  in  Syria  and  Armenia,  pro- 
duce a  new  edict,  requiring  the  seizure  and  incarceration  of 

all  Christian  teachers, 432 

A  third  edict  required  them  to  be  tortured  into  sacrificing  to  the 

Gods, 433 

n.  (3)  The  western  provinces  under  Constantius  Chlorus  suffer  but  little,  454 

4.  The  fourth  and  severest  edict  of  Diocletian,  A.  D,  304. — General  view,         .    435 

n.  (1)  Tenor  of  the  edict,  and  its  execution.     It  required  all  Christians 

to  sacrifice,  and  ordered  them  to  be  tortured  into  compliance,      436 
Some  Christians  voluntarily  courted  martyrdom,  .         .     439 

n.  (2)  Seeing  the  Christians  now  much  depressed,  Maximian  compelled 
the  two  Emperors  to  resign  their  power,  and  made    himself 

Emperor  of  the  East, 439 

This  change  in  the  government  benefitted  the  Christians  of  the 

West,  under  Constantius  Chlorus, 441 

The  Christians  of  the  East  gained  nothing.     Their  condition  in 

Syria  and  Egypt, 443 

6.  Civil  wars,  and  the  state  of  Christians,  A.  D.  306-311. — General  view,     .        444 
n.  (1)  Maximian's  fruitless  machinations  against  Constantino,      .         .     445 
Revolt  of  Maxentius,  and  the  civil  wars,         ....         44G 
State  of  Christians  during  these   wars,  p.  448. — In  the  West, 
Constantine  favored   them,  p.  448. — Yet   he   was  not    then  a 

Christian,  .........         449 

Maxentius  also  favored  them, 450 

But  in  the  East,   Maximian  persecuted  them,           .         .         .451 
n.  (3)  In  the  year  311,  Maximian,  on  his  death   bed,  relaxed  the  per- 
secution,         452 

6.  The  edicts  of  Constantine,  A.  D.  312,  313,  in  favor  of  Christians.— General 

view, 454 


Xii  CONTKNTSOFVOL.il. 

Page. 
n.  (1)  Theirs/  edict,  at  the  close  of  312,  gave  full  religious  liberty  to 

Christians,  and  to  all  persons  of  every  religion,      .         .        .  455 
The  second  edict,  from  Milan,  A.  D.  313,  removed  ambiguities 

from  the  first  edict,  and  added  some  privileges  to  the  Christians,  456 
In  the  East,  Maximin  contravened  the  last  edict  of  Maximian  ; 

and  expelled  the  Christians  from  some  cities,  <       .  »-     .         .  457 
Subsequently  he  issued  edicts  favorable  to  them,     .         .         .  458 
la  the  year  311,  Maximin  died,  and  persecution  ceased  every- 
where,            459 

7   Constauline's  Conversion. — General  view, 459 

71.  (1)  The  reality  of  Constantine's  conversion  proved,          .         .         .  460 
Objections  answered  :  viz.  the  first,  from  his  vices,  p.  460. — the 
second,  from  his  late  Baptism,  p.  461. — the  third  from  his 
political  interest  to  feign  himself  a  Christian,          .         .         .  464 
He  was  a  Deist,  till  long  after  the  year  303,          .         .         .  465 
His  conversion  was  soon  after  the  year  322,       ...         .        .  469 
His  enlightenment  gradual :  a  statement  of  Zosimus  examined,  470 
n.  (2)  His  vision  of  a  cross  in  the  heavens.  Dispute  as  to  the  time  of  it,  472 
Dispute  as  to  its  reality,  p.  472. — The  opinion  that  it  was  a  fabri- 
cation, examined, 473 

Was  he  asleep  or  awake,  at  the  time  of  it, 474 

"Was  the  apparent  cross  a  natural  phenomenon,  .         .                 .  476 

Mosheim's  opinion  on  the  whole  subject,         .         .             »     .  479 

£.  A  short  persecution  by  Licinius. — General  view,             479 

n  (1)  Authorities  on  the  subject. — Motives  and  progress  of  the  persecu- 
tion,       , .480 


THE 


ECCLESIASTICAL    Hr»^(>HY 


OF    THE 


THIRD  CENTURY, 


§  I.   Propagation  of  Christianity  in  Arabia.     That   the    [p.  448.] 
limits  of  the  Christian  commonwealth  were  much  extended  during 
this  century,  no  one  hesitates  to  admit;  but,  in  what  manner,  by 
whose  instrumentality,  and  in  what  parts  of  the  world,  is  not 
equally  manifest,  the  ancient  memorials  having  perished.    While 
Demetrius  ruled  the  Alexandrian  church,  over  which  he  is  said 
to  have  presided  until  the  year  230,  a  certain  Arabian  chieftain, 
(that  is,  as  I  suppose,  the  head  and  leader  of  a  tribe  of  those 
Arabs  who  live  in  tents,  and  have  no  fixed  and  permanent  resi- 
dence,) sent  letters  to  this  prelate,  and  to  the  prefect  of  Egypt, 
requesting  that  the  celebrated  Origen  might  be  sent  to  him,  to 
impart  to°him  and  his  people  a  knowledge  of  Christianity.     Ori- 
gan, therefore,  went  among  these  Arabs ;  and,  having  soon  dis- 
patched the  business  of  his  mission,  he  returned  to  Alexandria.(0 
He    undoubtedly    took    with    him    from  Alexandria    several 
Christian  disciples  and  teachers,  whom  he  left  with  that  people, 
as  he  himself  could  not  be  long  absent  from  Alexandria. 

(1)  We  have  a  brief  narrative  of  these  events  in  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles, 
lib.  vi.  c.  xix:  p.  221. 

§  II.    Propagation   of   Christianity  among  the   Goths.      To    the 

Goths,  a  most  warlike  and  ferocious  people,  dwelling  in  Moesia 
and  Thrace,  the  wars  they  waged  with  various  success  against 
the  Komans,  during  almost  the  whole  of  this  century,  produced 
this  advantage,  that  they  became  friendly  to  Christian  truth. 
For,  in  their  incursions  into  Asia  they  captured  and  carried 
away  several  Christian  priests,  the  sanctity  of  whose  lives  and 
manners,  together  with  their  miracles  and  prodigies,  so  aflccted 
VOL.  n.  2 


2  Century  IIL—Sectlon  3. 

the  minds  of  the  barbarians,  tliat  tliey  avowed  a  willingness  to 
[p.  449.]  follow  Christ,  and  called  in  additional  teachers  to  in- 
struct them.(')  There  is,  indeed,  much  evidence  that  what  is  here 
stated,  must  be  understood  only  of  a  i^art  of  this  race,  and  that 
no  small  portion  of  them  remained  for  a  long  time  afterwards  ad- 
dicted to  the  superstitions  of  their  ancestors ;  yet,  as  in  the  next 
century  Thcophilus,  a  bishop  of  the  Goths,  was  a  subscriber  to 
the  decrees  of  the  Nicene  council,  Q  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
quite  a  large  church  was  gathered  among  this  people  in  a  short 
space  of  time. 

(1)  Sozomen,  Hist.  Ecclos.  1.  ii.  c.  6.  Paulus  Diaconns^liht.  Miscellan.  1.  x. 
c.  14.  Philostorgius,  Hist.  Eccles.  I.  ii.  c.  v.  p.  470.  Philostorgius  states,  that 
tiic celebrated  Ulphilas,who  in  the  next  century  translated  the  Christian  Scri})- 
tures  into  the  language  of  the  Goths,  was  descended  from  those  captives  that 
were  carried  away  by  the  Goths  from  Cappadocia  and  Thrace,  in  the  reign  of 
Gallienus.  This  is  not  improbable ;  and  yet  there  are  some  other  things  in  tho 
narrative  of  Philostorgius,  which  perhaps  are  false. 

(2)  Socrates,  Hist.  Eccles.  1.  ii.  c.  41. 

§  III.  Christianity  in  Gaul,  Germany,  and  Scotland.  In  Gaul  a 
few  small  congregations  of  Christians  were  established  by  Asiatic 
teachers,  in  the  preceding  century.  But  in  this  century,  during 
the  reign  of  Decius,  seven  holy  men,  namely,  Biomjsms,  Gatianus, 
Trophimus,  Paulus,  Saturninus,  Martialis^  and  Stremonius,  emi- 
grated to  this  province,  and,  amidst  various  perils  and  hardships, 
established  new  churches  at  Paris,  Tours,  Aries,  Narbonne,  Tou- 
louse, Limoges,  and  in  Auvergne  ;(*)  and  their  disciples,  after- 
wards, gradually  spread  the  knowledge  of  Divine  truth  over  the 
whole  of  Gaul.  With  these  seven  men,  some  have  associated 
others,  but  it  is  on  authorities  obscure  and  not  to  be  relied  on.Q 
To  the  same  age  is  now  ascribed,  by  men  of  erudition,  who  are 
more  eager  for  truth  than  for  vain  glory,  the  origin  of  the 
churches  of  Cologne,  Treves,  Metz,  and  other  places  in  Germany; 
although  the  old  tradition  is,  that  the  founders  of  these  churches, 
Eucharius,  Valerius,  Maternus,  Clemens,  and  others,  were  sent 
forth  by  the  apostles  themselves,  in  the  first  century ;  and  there 
still  are  some  who  fondly  adhere  to  these  fables  of  their  ances- 
tors.(^)  And,  it  must  be  confessed,  that  those  have  the  best  of 
the  argument,  who  thus  correct  the  old  opinion  respecting  the 
origin  of  the  German  churches.    The  Scots,  also,  say  that  their 


Christianity  in    Gaul,  Germany,  and  Scotland.  3 

country  was  eiiliglitened  with  Christianity  in  this  cen-  [p.  450.] 
tury;  which,  although  probable  enough  in  itself  considered,  rests 
on  proofs  and  arguments  of  no  great  force. 

(1)  This  we  learn,  in  part,  from  the  Aetji  Martyrii  Saturnini,  in  the  Acta 
Martyrum  Sincera  of  Ruinarl,  pa.  109 ;  and,  in  part,  from  Gref^ory  of  Toura, 
Historia  Francor.  1.  i.  c.  xxviii.  p.  23,  ed.  Ruinart.  The  Frencli  anciently  re- 
ferred these  seven  persons,  and  the  origin  of  tlie  churches  tliey  founded,  to  the 
first  century.  In  particular,  Dionysius,  wlio  was  tiie  chief  man  of  the  seven, 
and  tlie  founder  of  the  church  at  Paiis,  and  its  first  bishop,  was  for  many  ages 
believed  to  be  Dionysias  the  Areopagite,  mentioned  in  the  17th  chapter  of  tlie 
Acts  of  the  Apostles.  But  in  the  last  century,  men  of  the  greatest  erudition 
among  the  French  did  not  hesitate  to  correct  this  error  of  their  predecessors, 
and  to  assign  Dionysius  and  liis  associates  to  the  third  century  and  to  the  times 
of  Decius.  The  tracts  and  discussions  on  this  subject  by  Launoi,  Sirmond, 
Petavius,  Puteanus,  Nic.  Faber,  and  others,  are  well  known.  The  ancient 
opinion,  however,  still  remains  so  fixed  in  the  minds  of  not  a  few,  and  especially 
among  the  monks  of  St.  Denys,  that  it  cannot  be  eradicated  ;  which  is  not  at 
all  surprising,  since  great  numbers  make  the  glory  of  their  church  to  depend 
very  much  on  its  antiquity.  But  the  arrival  of  these  seven  men  in  Gaul,  is  in- 
volved in  much  obscurity.  For  it  does  not  sufficiently  appear,  whence  they 
came,  nor  by  whom  they  were  sent.  Gregory  of  Tours,  Ilistoria  Francor.  1.  x. 
c.  xxxi.  p,  527,  says :  Gatianum  a  Romanaj  sedis  Papa  transmissum  esse :  from 
which  it  is  inferred,  that  the  other  six  also  came  from  Rome.  The  fact  may 
be  so,  and  it  may  be  otherwise.  It  is  equally  uncertain  whether  they  emigrated 
to  Gaul  together,  and  all  at  one  time,  or  whether  they  went  at  diflTercnt  times 
separately.  And  other  points  are  involved  in  the  like  obscurity,  I  indeed  sus- 
pect, that  these  devout  and  holy  men,  during  the  Decian  persecution  in  Italy, 
and  especially  at  Rome,  voluntarily,  and  for  the  preservation  of  their  lives, 
rather  than  by  the  direction  and  authority  of  the  Romish  bishop,  removed  to 
Gaul,  where  they  could  enjoy  greater  safety  than  at  Rome  and  in  Italy. 

(2)  The  people  of  Auxerre,  for  instance,  commemorate  one  Peregrinus,  who, 
as  they  think,  came  likewise  from  Rome  in  this  century,  and  laid  the  foundar- 
tion  of  their  church.  See  Le  Beuf,  Memoires  pour  I'Histoire  d' Auxerre,  tom.  i. 
p.  1-12.  There  is  also  mention  of  one  Genulphus,  as  an  apostle  of  the  Gauls, 
in  this  century.  >See  the  Acta  Sanctor.  mensis  Januar.  tom.  ii.  p.  92.  &-c. 
And  others  arc  also  mentioned  by  some  writers. 

(3)  What  the  French  believed  respecting  those  seven  men,  with  none  to 
gainsay  them,  the  Germans  also  believed  of  Eucharius,  Malernus,  Cleinens,  and 
others ;  namely,  that  they  were  disciples  of  the  apostles,  and  that  in  the  [p.  451.] 
first  century  they  established  Christian  churches  in  Germany,  on  this  side 
the  Rhine  and  in  Lorraine,  at  Cologne,  Treves,  Metz,  and  in  other  cities,  and 
governed  the  Churches  they  gathered,  as  their  bishops.  This  opinion  became 
suspicious  to  some  learned  men  in  the  last  century ;  and  in  the  present  cen- 
tury, it  has  been  boldly  assailed  by  Augustine  Cabnet,  in  a  dissertation  prefixed 
to  his  History  of  Lorraine,  written  in  French,  tom.  i.  in  which  he  contends 


4  Century  III. — Section  4. 

(p.  vii.)  that  Eiicharlna  and  Matcrnus  founded  the  Churches  of  Cologne  and 
Treves,  in  the  third  century,  and  (p.  xvii.  xx.)  that  Clemens  did  not  found  Ihe 
church  at  Metz  prior  to  tliat  time.  To  this  learned  man  stands  opposed  the 
commentator  on  the  Acta  S.  Auctoris,  in  the  Acta  Sanctor.  Antwerp,  tom.  iv 
mensis  Augusti,  p.  38.  who  not  unlearnedly  labors  to  sustain  the  ancient 
opinion.  But  the  recent  writer  of  the  Historia  Trevirensis  Diplomatica,  John 
Nic.  ah  Honlheim,  a  man  of  vast  learning,  after  considering  the  whole  subject 
with  great  care,  aud  weighing  accurately  the  testimony,  in  a  Dissertation  de 
iEra  Fundati  Episcopatus  Trevirensis,  prefixed  to  the  first  volume  of  his  his- 
torv,  has  fully  shown,  that  more  credit  is  due  to  Calmet  than  to  his  opponent. 
For,  having  maintained  at  great  length,  that  those  rely  on  witnesses  not  to  be 
credited  who  carry  back  the  founding  of  the  church  at  Treves,  and  the  other 
German  churches,  to  the  apostolic  age,  and  make  the  holy  men  above  men- 
tioned to  have  taught  in  the  first  century,  he  demonstrates  (section  vi.  p.  xxxii. 
&c.)  by  arguments  the  strongest  possible  in  such  a  case,  that  Maiernus  in  par- 
ticular, did  not  live  in  the  first  century,  nor  in  the  second,  but  near  the  end  of 
the  third ;  and  as  to  the  church  of  Cologne,  that  it  is  referable  to  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fourth  century. 

(4)  The  Scotch  historians  tell  us,  that  their  king,  Donald  I.  embraced  Chris- 
tianity, while  Victor  presided  over  the  Romish  church.  See  Sir  Geo.  MacKen- 
zie's  Defence  of  the  Royal  Line  of  Scotland,  ch.  viii.  p.  219.  But,  as  the  strong- 
est proof  of  their  position  is  derived  from  coins  of  this  Donald,  never  inspected 
by  any  one,  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  credit  they  deserve.  And  yet  it 
appears,  for  other  reasons,  adduced  by  Usher  and  Siillingjleet  in  their  Antiquita- 
tes  et  Origines  Ecclesiae  Britannicae,  that  the  Scotch  church  is  not  of  later  date 
than  the  third  century. 

§  IV.   Causes  of  the  progress  of  Christianity.    We  give  credence 

to  the  many  and  grave  testimonies  of  tlie  writers  of  tliose  times, 
wlio  cannot  be  suspected  of  either  fraud  or  levity,  that  the  success- 
ful progress  of  Christianity  in  this  century  was,  in  a  great  measure, 
attributable  to  divine  interpositions,  by  various  kinds  of  miracles, 
exciting  the  minds  of  the  people,  and  moving  them  to  abandon 
superstition.^)  Neither  can  we  easily  either  reject  altogether,  or 
[p.  452.]  seriously  ^question  what  we  find  testified  by  the  best 
men  of  the  times,  that  God  did,  by  dreams  and  visions,  excite 
not  a  few  among  the  thoughtless  and  the  enemies  of  Christianity, 
60  that  they  at  once,  and  without  solicitation,  came  forward  and 
made  a  public  profession  of  the  Christian  faith :(')  and  their  ex- 
amples, without  doubt,  served  to  overcome  the  timidity,  or  the 
hesitation,  or  the  indecision  of  many.  And  yet,  I  suppose,  it 
will  be  no  error  to  maintain,  that  causes  merely  human  and 
ordinary,  so  operated  on  the  minds  of  many  as  to  lead  them  to 
embrace  Christianity.    For  the  earnest  zeal  of  the  Christians,  to 


Persecution    under   Severus.  S 

merit  the  good  will  of  all  men,  even  of  tlieir  enemies ;  the  uu- 
parallcled  kindness  to  the  poor,  the  afflicted,  the  indigent,  to 
prisoners,  and  to  the  sick,  Avhich  was  peculiar  to  the  church ;  the 
remarkable  fortitude,  gravity,  and  uprightness,  which  character- 
ized their  teachers  ;  their  unwearied  assiduity  in  translating  the 
Sacred  Books  into  various  languages,  and  publishing  copies  of 
them ;  their  amazing  indiilerence  to  all  human  things,  to  evils 
and  suiTerings,  and  even  to  death  itself; — all  these,  and  other 
equally  distinguishing  traits  of  character,  may,  very  justly,  have 
induced  many  to  admire  and  to  embrace  the  religion  of  Cliris- 
tians,  which  produced  and  sustained  so  great  virtues.  And  if,  as 
I  would  by  no  means  deny,  pious  frauds  found  a  place  among 
the  causes  of  the  propagation  of  Christianity  in  this  century,  yet, 
they  unquestionably  held  a  very  inferior  position,  and  were  em- 
ployed by  only  a  few,  and  with  very  little,  if  any  success. 

(1)  Numerous  testimonies  of  the  ancients,  respecting  the  miracles  of  this 
century,  might  easily  be  collected.  See  Origen,  contra  Celsum,  1.  i.  p.  5-7,  and 
in  various  other  places ;  Cyprian,  Epist.  ad  Donatum,  i.  p.  3,  on  which  passage 
^Lesph.  Baliize  has  collected  many  testimonies  of  like  import,  in  his  Notes  there; 
Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  1.  vi.  c.  v.  p.  208,  &c.  The  reported  miracles  of  Gre- 
gory of  New  Cesaria  are  well  known;  and  yet  there  are  some  among  them 
which  may  be  justly  called  in  question.  See  Ant.  van  Dale's  Pref:ice  to  his 
work  de  Oraculis,  p.  6. 

(2)  The  ancients  record  many  instances  of  this  kind.  See  Origen,  contra 
Celsum,  1.  i.  p.  35 ;  and  Homil.  in  Lucae,  vii.  Opp.  torn.  ii.  p.  216.  TertuUian,  de 
Anima,  c.  xiv.  p.  348.  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  1.  vi.  c.  v.  p.  208,  &c.  &c.  Among 
these  examples,  there  are  some  which  may,  I  am  aware,  be  explained  by  refer- 
ring them  to  natural  causes;  but  there  are  others  which  demand  a  higher  cause. 

§  Y.  Persecution  under  Severus.  This  zeal  of  Christians  [p.  453.] 
for  extending  and  enlarging  the  church,  was  often  much  favored 
by  the  circumstances  of  the  times.  For,  although  they  never  en- 
joyed perfect  security,  the  laws  against  them  being  not  repealed, 
and  the  people  frequently  demanding  their  condemnation,  yet, 
under  some  of  the  Roman  emperors  of  this  century,  their  enemies, 
in  most  of  the  provinces,  seemed  to  be  quiet,  and  to  dread  the 
perils  to  which  a  legal  prosecution  exposed  them.  Still,  seasons 
of  the  severest  trial  frequently  occurred,  and  emperors,  gover- 
nors, and  the  people,  disregarding  the  ancient  edicts,  came  down 
as  furiously  upon  the  Christians  as  they  would  upon  robbers : 
and  these  storms  greatly  impeded  the  work  of  extirpating  the  old 


6  Century  III. — Section  5. 

superstitions.  The  commencement  of  this  century  was  painfully 
adverse  to  the  Christian  cause.  For,  although  Severus,  the  Roman 
emperor,  was  not  personally  hostile  to  Christians,  yet,  from  the  re- 
cords of  that  age,  still  extant,  it  appears  that,  in  nearly  all  the  pro- 
vinces, many  Christians,  either  from  the  clamorous  demands  of  the 
superstitious  multitude,  whom  the  priests  excited,  or  by  the  au- 
thority of  magistrates,  who  made  the  law  of  Trajan  a  cloak  for 
their  barbarity  and  injustice,  were  put  to  death  in  various  forms 
of  execution.  To  these  evils,  originating  from  various  causes,  the 
Christians  themselves  undoubtedly  gave  some  impetus,  by  a  prac- 
tice which  had  for  some  time  prevailed  among  them,  with  the  ap- 
probation of  the  bishops,  that  of  purchasing  life  and  safety  by 
paying  money  to  the  magistrates.(')  For  the  avaricious  governors 
and  magistrates  would  often  assail  the  Christians,  and  direct  some 
of  the  poorer  ones  to  be  put  to  death,  in  order  to  extort  money 
from  the  more  wealthy,  and  to  enrich  themselves  with  the  trea- 
sures of  the  churches. 

(1)1  cannot  regard  this  practice  as  one  of  the  least  of  the  causes  of  the  fre- 
quent wars  of  the  magistrates  and  men  in  power  against  Christians,  contrary  to 
the  laws  and  the  pleasure  of  the  emperors.  For  what  will  not  avarice  venture 
to  do?  The  Montanists  strongly  condemned  this  practice;  and  hence  Terlvl- 
lian  is  vehement  and  copious  in  reprobating  it;  and,  in  his  book  de  Fuga  in  Per- 
secutionibus,  c.  xii.  p.  696,  he  says:  Sicut  fuga  redemptio  gratuita  est;  ita  re- 

demptio  nummaria  fuga  est. Pedibus  statisti,  curristl  nummis.     And  then, 

after  some  bitter  but  unsound  remarks,  he  proceeds:  Tu  pro  Christiano  pacis- 
[p.  454.]  ceris  cum  delatore,  vel  milite,  vel  furunculo  aliquo  preeside,  sub  tunica 
et  sinu,  ut  furtivo,  quern  coram  toto  mundo  Christus  emit,  immo  et  manumisit. 
Who  can  wonder,  that  informers  and  accusers  were  never  wanting,  so  long  as 
the  Christians,  (as  appears  from  this  passage,)  would  pacify  informers  with 
money  1  Felices  itaque  pauperes  (for  these,  being  without  money,  were 
obliged  to  suffer,)  quia  illorum  est  regnum  coelorum,  qui  animam  solam  in  con- 
fiscato  habent .  . .  Apostoli  perse  cutionibus  agitati,  quando  se  pecunia  tractantes 
liberaverunt?  quae  illis  utique  non  deerat  ex  praediorum  pretiis  ad  pedes  eo. 
rum  depositis.  But  not  only  individual  Christians  consulted  their  safety  in 
this  way,  but  whole  churches  also  compounded  with  the  governors  for  peace,  by 
pecuniary  contributions,  and  paid  a  sort  of  annual  tribute,  not  unlike  that  as- 
sessed on  bawds  and  panders  and  other  vile  characters.  It  is  not  amiss,  to 
transcribe  here  the  indignant  language  of  I'eriullian,  c.  xrn.  p.  100.:  Parum 
dcniquc  est,  si  unus  aut  alius  ita  eruitur.  Massaliter  totae  ecclesia)  tributum 
sibi  irrogaverunt.  Nescio  dolcndum,  an  erubescendum  sit,  cum  in  matricibus 
Bencficiariorum  et  Curiosorum,  inter  tabernarios  et  lanios,  et  fures  balnearum» 
et  aleones  et  lenonea,  Christian!  quoque  vectigales  continentur.    Moreover,  aa 


The  Edict  of  Severiis.  7 

appears  from  Tcrtul!i:iM,  the  Christians  sometimes  bargained  with  those,  who 
threatened  to  turn  accusers  if  money  was  not  given  them,  at  other  times  with 
the  governors  themselves,  and  sometimes  with  tiie  soldiers;  which  last  deserves 
particular  notice,  because  we  learn  from  it,  that  the  mngistrates  directed  tho 
soldiers  to  v/alch  for,  and  break  up,  the  assemblies  of  Christians:  and  therefore, 
these  were  to  be  pacified  with  money,  in  order  that  Christians  might  safely 
meet  together  for  the  worship  of  God.  Says  TertuUian  :  Sed  quomodo  coUi- 
gemus,  inquis,  quomodo  Dominica  solemnia  celebrabimus?  Utique,  quomodo 
et  Apostoli,  fide,  non  pecunia  tuti :  quae  fides  si  montera  transferre  potest,  multo 
magis  militem.  Esto  sapientia,  non  pracmio  eautus.  Neque  enim  stntim, 
(mark  the  expression,)  et  a  populo  eris  tutus,  si  officia  militaria  redemeris.  What 
the  bishops  thought  of  this  practice,  is  abundantly  shown  by  Peter  of  Alexan- 
dria, who  was  a  martyr  of  this  century.  In  his  canons,  extracted  from  his 
Discourse  dePoenitentia,  Canon  xii.  (inW/n.  Beverege' s  Piindectae  canonumet 
concilior.  Tom.  ii.  20.)  lie  not  only  decides,  that  those  are  not  to  be  censured 
who  purchase  safety  with  money,  but  are  to  be  commended ;  and  he  encoun- 
ters TertuUian  with  his  own  arguments.  I  will  quote  only  the  Latin,  omitting 
the  Greek :  lis,  qui  pecuniam  dederunt,  ut  omni  ex  parte  ab  omni  malitia  im- 
perturbati  assent,  crimen  intendi  non  potest.  Damnum  enim  et  jacturam 
pecuniarum  sustinuerunt,  ne  ipsi  animae  detrimento  afficerentur,  vel  ipsain 
etiam  proderent,  quod  alii  propter  turpe  lucrum  non  fecerunt,  &,c. 

§  VI.     The    Edict  of  Severus   against    conversions   to    [p.   455.] 

Christianity.  These  evils  were  greatly  augmented,  when  the  em- 
peror, in  the  year  203,  for  some  cause  not  known,  became  some- 
what differently  disposed  towards  the  Christians,  and  issued  an 
edict,  forbidding  .Roman  citizens,  under  a  severe  penalty,  from 
abandoning  the  religion  of  their  fathers,  and  embracing 
Christianity.  This  law,  although  it  opposed  only  the  increase  of 
the  church,  and  affected  only  those  recently  converted,  and  those 
who  Avished  to  join  the  Christians  after  the  publication  of  the  law, 
yet  afforded  occasion  for  the  adversaries  of  Christians  to  perse- 
cute and  harass  them  at  their  pleasure ;  and  especially  because 
the  ancient  laws,  and  particularly  that  most  vexatious  one  of 
Trajan, — that  persons  accused,  and  refusing  to  confess,  might  be 
put  to  death, — remained  unrepealed,  and  in  full  force.(')  Hence, 
so  great  was  the  slaughter  among  Christians,  especially  of  such 
as  could  not,  or,  from  conscientious  motives,  would  not  redeem 
their  lives  with  money,  that  some  of  their  teachers  supposed  the 
coming  of  Antichrist  to  draw  near.  Among  others,  many  of  the 
Alexandrian  Christians  lost  their  lives  for  Christ,  of  whom  waa 
Leonidas,  the  father  of  Origen  ;  and  in  Africa,  the  celebrated 
Christian  females,  Perpetua  and  Felicitas,  whose  xicta,  illustrious 


8  Century  III. — Section  6. 

monuments  of  antiquity,  have  been  often  published ;  and  Pota- 
mienaj  a  virgin  of  Alexandria,  and  her  mother,  MarceUa,  with 
various  others.  Respecting  the  termination  of  this  persecution, 
the  ancient  writers  are  silent ;  but,  as  it  appears  from  reliable 
authorities,  and  especially  from  Tertullian,  that  the  Christians 
were  also  persecuted  in  some  places  under  Caracalla,  the  son  of 
Severus,  it  seems  to  be  judging  correctly  to  suppose  that  the  per- 
secution did  not  cease  till  after  the  death  of  Severus. 

(1)  On  the  persecution  of  the  Christians  under  Severus,  Eusehius  treats. 
Hist.  Eecles.  Ij.  vi.  cap.  1.  &e, ;  but  only  in  a  general  way :  for  he  neither  re- 
ports the  hiw,  nor  the  time  and  cause  of  its  enactment.  Other  Christian  writers 
incidentally  mention  the  severity  of  the  persecution,  the  cruelty  of  the  judges, 
and  the  constancy  of  certain  Christians;  yet  they  say  very  little  of  the  mode 
and  the  grounds  of  the  persecution.  Spartian,  however,  the  writer  of  the  Life 
of  Severn.'^,  has  told  ns  the  year,  and  stated  the  reason,  of  the  persecution :  Vita 
Severi,  c,  16,  17.  in  the  Scriptorcs  Histor.  Augustae,  p.  617,  618.  For  he  says, 
that  the  erai>?ror,  in  the  year  that  he  invested  his  son  Antoninus  with  the  Toga 
[p.  456.]  virilis,  and  designated  him  consul  with  himself,  which  was  the  tenth  year 
of  his  reign,  as  he  was  passing  through  Palestine  into  Egypt,  enacted  a  law  equal- 
ly severe  against  the  Jews  and  the  Christians :  Palaestinis  jura  plurima  fundavit : 
Judaeos  fieri  sub  gravi  poena  vetuit :  Idem  etiam  de  Christianis  sanxit.  This 
language  shows,  that  Severus  did  not  enact  new  laws  against  the  Christians, 
nor  command  the  extirpation  of  the  professors  of  Christianity,  but  only  resolved 
to  prevent  the  increase  of  the  churcli,  and  commanded  those  to  be  punished, 
who  should  forsake  the  religion  of  their  fothers  and  embrace  that  of  the  Chris- 
tians. Persons,  therefore,  who  were  born  Christians,  or  had  become  Christians 
before  this  law  was  enacted,  might  indeed  be  exposed  to  some  trouble  and  dan- 
ger from  the  old  laws,  and  especially  from  the  noted  rescript  of  Trajan,  which 
subsequent  enactments  had  not  abrogated;  but  from  this  new  law  of  Severus 
they  had  nothing  to  fear.  But  some  learned  men  are  not  ready  to  believe  this. 
For,  perceiving  what  a  multitude  of  Christians  suffered  death,  under  Severus. 
they  say,  the  fact  is  not  to  be  accounted  for,  if  Severus  wished  evil  to  none  but 
the  deserters  of  their  former  religion.  They  therefore  conjecture,  either  that 
Spartian  has  mutilated  the  law  of  Severus,  and  omitted  a  large  part  of  it,  or  that 
the  emperor  issued  other  and  severer  laws  against  the  Christians,  which  have  not 
reached  our  times.  But  I  can  easily  overthrow  both  these  conjectures.  That 
Spartian  did  not  mutilate  the  law  of  Severus,  his  own  words  show.  For  he 
compares  the  edict  against  the  Jews,  with  that  against  the  Christians,  and  says 
that  the  latter  was  of  the  same  tenor  with  the  former.  But  Severus  neither 
interdicted  the  Jewish  religion,  nor  compelled  those  born  of  Jewish  parents  to 
embrace  the  religion  of  the  Romans;  but  merely  forbid  accessions  to  the 
Jewish  community  from  people  of  other  nations.  And  therefore  he  was  no 
more  severe  against  the  Christians,  seeing  his  decree  against  them  was  precisely 
the  same  as  against  the  Jews.     That  Severus  enacted  other  laws  against  tho 


The  Edict  of  Severus.  9 

Christians,  than  the  one  mentioned  by  Spartian,  ia  contrary  to  all  probaLility. 
For,  not  to  mention  the  silence  of  the  ancient  writers,  it  appears  from  explicit 
passages  in  Tertullian,  that  the  emperor  did  not  repeal  those  ancient  laws  which 
favored  Christians ;  which  he  undoubtedly  would  have  done,  if  he  intended  they 
should  be  treated  more  severely  than  in  former  times.  In  his  book,  ad  Scapii. 
lam,  which  was  written  after  the  death  of  Severus,  in  the  reign  of  Antoninus 
Caracalla,  Tertullian  thus  addresses  that  governor,  (c.  4,  p.  87.)  :  Quid  cnim 
amplius  tibi  mandatur,  quam  nocentes  confesses  damnare,  negantcs  autem  ad 
tormenta  revocare?  Videtis  ergo  quomodo  ipsi  vos  contra  mandata  faciutis,  ut 
confesses  negare  cogatis.  This  passage  shows,  most  beautifully  and  admirably, 
how  the  emperors,  and  among  them  the  recently  deceased  Severus,  would  have 
the  judges  deal  with  Christians.  In  the  first  place,  sentence  of  death  was  to  be 
passed  in  nocentes  confessos.  The  nocentes  here,  are  those  "  accused  and  con- 
victed in  a  regular  course  of  law."  This  is  put  beyond  controversy  [p.  457.] 
by  various  passages  in  Tertullian,  and  also  in  this  very  passage,  in  which  the 
nocentes  negantes  follow  the  nocentes  confessos.  Who  could  be  a  nocens  negans, 
except  the  man  who  was  accused  of  some  crime  or  fault,  and  convicted  by  his 
accuser,  and  yet  denied  that  he  was  guilty?  We  will,  however,  let  Tertullian 
himself  teach  us,  how  to  understand  the  expression.  Among  the  examples 
which  he  shortly  after  adduces,  of  governors  that  favored  the  Christians,  he 
extols  one  Pudens,  in  the  following  terms:  Pudens  etiam  missum  ad  se  Chris- 
tianum,  in  clogio,  concussione  ejus  intellecta,  dimisit,  scisso  eodem  elogio,  sine 
Accusatore  negans  se  auditurum  hominem,  secundum  Mandatum  (ss.  Imperaloris.) 
Under  Severus,  therefore,  as  is  most  manifest  from  these  words,  the  law  of 
Trajan  remained  in  full  force ;  and  it  enjoined,  that  no  Christian  should  be  con- 
demned, unless  he  was  legitimately  accused  and  convicted.  And,  moreover, 
those  accused  and  convicted,  but  who  yet  denied  themselves  to  be  Christians, — 
the  nocentes  negantes,  might  be  put  to  the  rack,  and  be  compelled  by  torture  to 
confess  guilt.  This  was  not  expressly  enjoined  by  Trajan,  but  it  was  in  accord- 
ance with  Roman  law.  But,  thirdly,  the  laws  did  not  permit  the  mngistrates,  to 
urge  confessing  persons  to  a  denial  or  a  rejection  of  Christianity,  by  means  of 
tortures.  This  was  a  liberty  which  the  governors  assumed  contrary  to  the  laws, 
as  I  suppose,  and  from  motives  of  avarice.  For  when  the  confessors  declared 
that  they  would  not  redeem  life  by  paying  money,  the  governors  hoped,  that  if 
put  to  torture,  tiiey  would  change  their  determination.  That  the  laws  of  Ha- 
drian and  Antoninus  Pius,  ordering  that  Christians  should  not  be  put  to  death 
imless  convicted  of  some  violation  of  the  Roman  laws,  were  in  like  manner  not 
repealed  by  Severus,  appears  from  another  example  of  the  governor  Circius 
Severus,  mentioned  by  the  same  Tertullian;  Circius  Severus  Thysdri  ipse  dedit 
remedium,  quomodo  responderent  Christiani  ut  dimitti  possent.  By  cautious 
and  circumspect  answers  to  the  judges,  therefore.  Christians  could  elude  the 
malice  of  their  accusers :  and  in  what  manner,  it  is  easy  to  conjecture :  viz. 
they  confessed  that  they  followed  a  dilTerent  religion  from  the  Roman,  namely 
the  Christian;  but  that  the  emperors  forbid  a  Christian  to  be  punished,  unless  ho 
was  convicted  of  some  crime,  and  they  had  never  been  guilty  of  any  crime. 
With  an  upright  judge,  this  plea  was  suflicicnt.    And  it  is  not  only  certain,  that 


10  Century  III,— Section  G. 

Scverus  did  not  abrogate  the  imperial  edicts  favorable  to  the  Christians,  but  it 
also  appears  from  Tortullian,  that  he  constiintly  and  to  the  end  of  his  life  re- 
tained his  former  kind  feelinj^s  towards  them.  For  Tertullian  says  of  iiim,  after 
his  death:  Sed  et  clarissimns  feminas  et  clarissimos  viros  Severus  sciens  ejus 
sectae  esse,  non  modo  non  laesit,  verum  et  testimonio  exornavit,  et  populo 
furonti  in  cos  palam  restitit.  How  could  Severus  have  been  a  protector  of 
Christians  against  popular  rage,  and  also  their  eulogist,  if  he  had  enacted  se- 
[p.  458.]  verer  laws  against  them,  than  the  preceding  emperors?  It  must 
therefore  be  certain,  as  Spartian  has  stated,  that  he  ordered  the  punishment, 
not  of  all  Ciiristians  universally,  but  only  of  such  as  became  Ciu-istians  after  the 
enactment  of  the  law. 

But  how  was  it,  you  may  ask,  that  so  great  calamities  fell  on  the  Christians, 
in  his  reign,  if  Severus  directed  only  the  new  converts  to  be  punished  ?  An 
answer  is  easily  given.  In  the^r^-^  place,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  Chris- 
tians had  been  miserably  persecuted  in  most  of  the  Roman  provinces,  before 
the  law  of  Severus  existed.  This  we  have  shown  in  the  history  of  the  second 
century,  from  the  Apologeticum  of  Tertullian ;  and  the  fact  cannot  be  denied. 
The  avaricious  governors  finding  the  Christians  willing  to  redeem  their  lives 
witli  money,  suborned  accusers,  and  inflamed  the  people,  in  order  to  extort 
money ;  and  they  actually  put  some  confessors  to  death,  to  strike  terror  into 
the  more  wealthy,  and  make  them  willing  to  compound  for  their  lives.  In  the 
next  place,  it  is  to  be  supposed,  that  Severus  gave  power  to  the  governors  to  in- 
vestigate the  case  of  such  as  forsook  the  Romish  religion  and  embraced  Chris- 
tianity; and,  in  these  investigations,  the  magistrates  and  their  minions,  as  is 
very  common,  did  many  things  not  warranted  by  the  law-  Thirdly,  as  the 
persons  who  forsook  the  religion  of  their  fathers  were  to  be  punished,  un- 
doubtedly  the  same  penalties,  or  perhaps  greater,  awaited  those  who  caused 
their  apostacy.  For  he  who  instigates  another  to  commit  a  crime,  is  more  cul- 
pable than  the  transgressor.  It  was  therefore  a  necessary  consequence,  that 
many  of  the  Christian  teachers  were  condemned.  Lastly,  those  conversant  in 
human  affairs  well  know,  that  when  new  laws  are  enacted  on  any  subject,  the 
old  laws  relating  to  it  acquire  new  life.  It  would  therefore  not  be  strange,  if 
on  Severus'  prohibiting  conversions  to  Christianity,  the  number  of  accusers 
should  be  suddenly  increased.  I  say  nothing  of  the  probability,  that  the  more 
unfriendly  governors  extended  the  prohibitions  of  the  law,  and  summoned  to 
their  bar  persons  who  became  Christians  before  the  law  was  enacted. 

What  some  of  the  learned  maintain,  respecting  the  cause  of  this  edict,  has 
little  or  no  weight.  The  most  probable  conjecture  is  that  of  Henry  Dodwell, 
in  his  Dissert.  Cyprian.  Diss.  xi.  §  42.  p.  269. ;  namely,  that  the  emperor's 
victory  over  the  Jews,  who  had  disturbed  the  public  tranquillity  by  a  recent  in- 
surrection, gai^e  rise  to  this  edict.  That  this  Jewish  insurrection  induced 
Severus  to  prohibit  Romans  from  becoming  Jews,  lest  the  augmentation  of  the 
resources  of  that  people  should  prove  injurious  to  the  commonwealth,  is  be- 
yond all  controversy.  But  Spartian  couples  the  law  against  the  Christians  with 
that  against  the  Jews,  and  tells  us,  that  both  were  enacted  at  the  same  time: 
and  we  may  reasonably  suppose,  therefore,  that  some  ill-disposed  persons  sug- 


Caracalla  and  Ilcliogahalus.  \\ 

gestod  to  the  emperor,  that  there  was  equal  danger  from  the  Christians,  and 
that  if  tiieir  numbers  and  strength  should  become  augmented,  they  might  mako 
war  upon  the  Romans  who  worsliipped  the  gods.  This  argument  had  great 
elK'ct  upon  the  superstitious  emperor.  And  there  is  little  force  in  [p.  459.] 
what  is  o})posed  to  this  supposition,  by  certain  learned  men,  who,  following 
TUlemonL  (Memoircs  pour  I'Histoire  de  I'Eglise,  tom.iii.  P.  I.  p.  487.)  say,  it  ap- 
pears from  Jerome's  Chronicon,thatthe  war  against  the  Jews  occurred  in  iUa  fifth 
year  of  Severus,  but  that  the  law  was  not  enacted  till  his  tenth  year.  For  there 
might  be  various  reasons  for  several  years  to  intervene  between  the  war  and  the 
promulgation  of  the  law.  Dodwell,  however,  and  those  who  follow  him,  have 
erred  in  supposing  that  Severus  did  not  distinguish  between  the  Jews  and  the 
Christians,  but  confounded  them  together.  For,  not  to  mention,  that  Spartian's 
laiigunge  is  opposed  to  this  idea,  he  distinctly  stating  that  there  were  two  laws, 
one  against  the  Jews  and  the  other  against  the  Christians;  Severus  could  not 
be  80  ignorant  of  the  affairs  of  his  own  times,  as  to  confound  the  Christians 
with  the  Jews.  Tiiere  were  Christians  in  his  own  family  ;  and  with  some  of 
them  he  lived  in  intimacy. 

§  VII.   The  state  of  Christians  under  Caracalla  and  Helio^abaliis. 

Severus,  having  died  at  York,  in  Britain,  in  the  year  211,  was 
succeeded  by  his  son,  Antoninus,  surnamed  Caracalla,  who  better 
deserved  the  title  of  tyrant  than  tliat  of  emperor.  Yet,  under 
him,  the  persecution  which  liis  father  had  excited  against  the 
Christians,  gradually  subsided  :(')  and,  during  the  six  years  of  his 
reign,  we  do  not  learn  that  they  endured  any  very  great  griev- 
ances. "Whether  this  is  ascribable  to  his  good  will  towards  Chris- 
tians, or  to  other  causes,  docs  not  sufficiently  appear.(")  He  being 
slain,  after  the  short  reign  of  Macrinus,  who  instigated  the  mur- 
der, the  government  of  the  Roman  empire  was  assumed  by  Anto- 
ninus Elanahalus,  a  prince  of  the  most  abandoned  character,  and 
a  monster  of  a  man.  Yet,  he  also,  did  nothino*  ai>:ainst  the  Chris- 
tians.Q  After  a  reign  of  three  years  and  nine  months,  he  was 
slain,  with  his  mother,  Julia,  in  a  military  tumult  at  Eome;  and 
Alexander  Severus,  the  son  of  Mammaea,  whom  Elagabalus  had 
adopted,  and  had  constituted  Ciesar,  was  hailed  emperor  in  the 
year  222,  and  proved  to  be  a  very  mild  and  excellent  prince. 

(1)  We  have  a  work  of  Tertullian  addressed  to  Scapula,  a  most  bitter 
enemy  of  the  Christians,  and  written  after  the  death  of  Severus,  froii  which  it 
appears  that  the  commencement  of  Caracalla's  reign  was  sullied  by  the  execu- 
tion of  many  Christians  in  Africa. 

(2)  Some  learned  men  think,  Canicnlla  h:id  kind  feelit-gs  townrds  Christians  ; 
and  in  favor  of  tliis  opinion  they  cite  the  authority  of  Tertnilian  and  [p.  4G0.] 


12  Century  IIT.—Scction  7. 

Spartian.  The  former,  in  his  work  ad  Scapulam,  c.  4.  p.  87,  records,  that  Anto- 
ninus Caracalhi  lade  Christiano  educatum  fuisse,  which,  undoubtedly  means, 
that  he  was  nursed  by  a  Christian  mother.  The  latter,  in  his  life  of  Caracalla, 
(in  tlie  Scriptures  Hist.  Augustae,  torn.  i.  p.  707,)  relates  of  him,  that  when 
seven  years  old,  Quum  collusorem  suum  puerum  ob  Judaicam  religionem  gra- 
vius  verberatum  audivissut,  ncque  patrem  suum,  neque  patrem  pueri,  vel  auc- 
tores  verberum  diu  respexissc :  that  is,  he  was  exceedingly  ofiendcd  at  the 
injury  done  to  his  companion.  From  these  two  testimonies,  learned  men  have 
supposed,  that  it  may  be  inferred,  the  Christian  mother  of  Caracalla  instilled 
into  him  a  love  of  her  religion,  along  with  her  milk;  and  that  this  led 
him  to  80  great  indignation  towards  the  persons  who  had  punished  his  com- 
panion on  account  of  his  religion.  They,  moreover,  do  not  hesitate  to  say, 
that  by  Judaica  Religio  in  the  passage  from  Spartian,  should  be  understood  the 
Chrislian  religion ;  because  it  is  certain,  that  Christians  were  frequently  con- 
founded with  Jews  by  the  Romans  of  those  times.  But  to  me,  all  this  appears 
very  uncertain.  To  begin  with  the  last  assumption,  I  cannot  easily  persuade 
myself,  that  Spartian  meant  Christianity  when  he  wrote  Jewjish  religion ;  for  It 
appears  from  other  passages  in  his  book,  that  he  was  not  ignorant  of  the  wide 
ditference  between  the  Jews  and  the  Christians.  And  again,  it  was  not  a  love 
of  the  religion,  which  his  companion  professed,  but  attachment  to  the  person  of 
his  friend  and  play-fellow,  that  made  him  angry  with  those  who  punished  him. 
Lastly,  it  is  not  easy  to  conceive,  how  a  sucking  child  could  be  imbued  by  his 
mother  with  the  love  of  ariT/  religion.  The  ancient  Christians  do  not  mention 
Caracalla  among  their  patrons;  and  the  tranquillity  they  enjoyed  under  him, 
was  due  perhaps  to  their  money,  which  they  would  spend  freely  in  times  of 
trouble,  more  than  to  the  friendship  of  this  very  cruel  emperor. 

(3)  There  is  a  passage  in  the  life  of  Heliogabalus  by  Lampridius,  (c.  3. 
p.  796.)  which  seems  to  indicate,  that  this  emperor,  though  one  of  the  worst  of 
men,  was  destitute  of  hatred  to  the  Christians.  It  is  this:  Dicebat  praiterea 
(Imperator)  Judaeorum  et  Samaritanorum  religiones  et  Christianam  devotionem 
illuc  (viz.  Rome,  where  he  would  have  no  other  god  to  be  worshipped,  besides 
Heliogabalus,  or  the  sun,  of  which  he  was  himself  priest,)  transferendam,  ut 
omnium  culturarum  (i.  e.  all  forms  of  divine  worship,)  secretum  Heliogabali 
sacerdotium  teneret.  Although  this  passage  is  more  obscure  than  I  could 
wish,  yet  the  following  things  can,  I  think,  be  learned  from  it.  I.  That  Helio- 
gabalus wished  to  abolish  all  the  deities  worshipped  by  the  Romans,  and  to 
substitute  in  their  place  one  deity,  the  sun,  of  which  he  himself  was  priest. 
Nor  was  this  very  strange  ;  for  among  both  the  Greeks  and  the  Romans,  there 
were  persons  who  supposed  that  all  the  Gods  represented  only  the  sun.  H. 
That,  on  this  taking  place,  he  wished  to  have  the  Jewish,  Christian,  and  Sama- 
ritan religions  transferred  also  to  Rome.  And  III.  That  his  aim  was,  that  the 
sacerdotium,  that  is,  the  priests  of  Heliogabalus  or  the  sun,  might  learn  the 
[p.  461.1  secret  ceremonies,  of  all  religions,  and  be  able,  perhaps,  from  theso 
ceremonies  to  improve  and  embellish  the  worship  paid  to  the  sun.  Weliogaba- 
lus,  therefore,  did  not  wish  to  extirpate  the  Christian  religion,  but  he  would 
have  Christians  live  at  their  ease  in  Rome  itself,  and  worship  God  in  their  own 


Alexander    Sever  us.  13 

way,  so  that  the  priests  of  the  sun,  by  intercourse  with  them,  might  learn  tlieir 
most  secret  discipline.  Such  an  emperor  could  have  no  thoughts  of  pcrsocut- 
ing  the  Christians. 

§  VIII.  state  of  Christians  under  Alexander  Severus.  Under 
Alexander  Severas,  the  Christians  saw  better  times,  than  under 
any  of  the  preceding  emperors.  The  principal  cause  of  thei;: 
peace  and  tranquillity,  was  Julia  Mammcca^  the  emperor's  mother, 
who  influenced  and  guided  her  son ;  and,  having  the  greatest  re 
spect  for  Christianity,  once  invited  Origen,  the  celebrated  Chris  • 
tian  doctor,  to  visit  the  court,  that  she  might  profit  by  his  in- 
structions and  conversation.^)  Yielding  himself,  therefore, 
wholly  to  the  judgment  and  pleasure  of  his  mother,  Alexander 
not  only  adopted  no  measures  adverse  to  the  Christians,  but  he 
did  not  hesitate  to  show,  by  various  tokens,  his  kind  feelings  to- 
wards them.  And  yet,  if  we  examine  carefully  all  the  evidences 
of  these  his  kind  feelings,  which  history  records,  they  do  not  ap- 
pear sufficient  to  prove,  that  he  regarded  Christianity  as  more 
true  or  more  excellent  than  other  religions.  If  I  can  rightly 
judge,  Alexander  was  one  of  those  who  supposed,  that  but  one 
God  was  worshipped  by  all  the  nations,  under  different  names, 
in  differing  modes  and  forms,  and  with  diversity  of  rites.  This 
opinion,  it  is  well  known,  was  held  by  many  of  the  philosophers 
of  that  age,  and  particularly  by  the  Platonists.  And,  if  so,  he 
would  think,  that  the  Christian  mode  of  worshipping  God  might 
be  tolerated  as  well  as  the  others ;  and  perhaps,  also,  he  deemed 
it  in  some  respects  more  consentaneous  to  reason  than  some  of 
the  others.^ )  Yet  his  estimate  of  Christianity  was  not  sufficient 
to  lead  him  to  abrogate  the  old  laws  against  Christians,  if  it  was 
true,  as  it  seems  to  be,  that  in  his  reign,  Ulpian  collected  all  the 
laws  enacted  against  the  Christians,  so  that  the  Koman  judges 
might  understand  how  they  were  to  proceed  against  them.  And 
hence,  perhaps,  we  must  not  regard  as  fictitious,  all  the  examples 
of  martyrdom  endured  by  Christians  under  him,  in  one  place  and 
another,  of  which  we  find  mention. 

(1)  All  the  modern  Christian  historians  represent  Julia  Mammaea,  tho 
mother  of  Alexander,  as  a  convert  to  Christianity.  See  Joh.  Rud.  [p.  462.] 
Wetstein:  Praifatio  ad  Origcnis  Dialogum  contra  Marcionitas  ;  who  thinks,  with 
others  of  great  authority  and  learning,  that  credit  must  be  given  to  so  numerouu 
testimonies.     But  the  older  historians,  Easehius   (Hist.  Eccies.  L.  vi.  c.  21. 


14  Century  III.— Section  8. 

p.  223.)  and  Jerome.,  (C.-itnl.  Scriptor.  Ecclcs.  c.  54.)  speak  dubiously.  The 
former  characterises  Julia  as  ^eccre^iTTuTfl,  and  the  latter  styles  her  religiosa. 
And  both  tell  us,  that  Origeu  was  invited  by  her  to  the  court,  which  was  then 
at  Aniioch,  and  tiiat  she  heard  him  discourse  on  religion.  But  neither  states, 
that  she  yielded  to  Origen's  views,  or  that,  abandoning  superstition,  she  became 
a  professed  Christian.  Neither  are  the  two  words,  by  which  Eusebias  and 
Jerome  express  her  piety,  of  such  import  as  clearly  to  imply  her  conversion ; 
for  they  are  applied  by  the  ancients,  in  general,  to  all  persons,  Christians  or 
not  Christians,  who  were  solicitous  for  salvation,  and  reverenced  a  supreme 
Being.  On  the  other  hand,  we  find  manifest  indications,  in  the  life  of  Julia,  of 
real  superstition,  and  of  the  worship  of  the  false  Roman  gods.  These  and 
other  considerations  induce  several  excellent  men  to  believe,  that  she  continued 
an  adherent  to  the  religion  of  her  ancestors.  A  fuller  discussion  of  this  sub- 
ject may  be  found  in  Fred.  Spanheiyri's  Diss,  de  Lucii  Britonum  Regis,  Juliae 
Mammaea3  et  Philiporum  Conversionibus,  c.  2.  0pp.  torn.  ii.  p.  400.  I  will 
add  a  few  things,  corroborative,  as  I  think,  of  this  opinion.  And  first,  Lam- 
pridius,  in  his  life  of  Severus,  c.  14.  (Scriptores  Hist.  August,  tom.  i.  p.  901,) 
styles  lier  Sa?icla  Mulier,  an  expression  corresponding  with  the  epithets  used 
by  Jerome  and  Eusebius;  yet  no  one  supposes  that  Lampridius  intended,  by 
this  language,  to  indicate  that  she  embraced  Christianity.  Again,  I  deem  it 
worthy  of  remark,  that  Eusebius  states  in  the  passage  specified,  that  Origen 
did  not  remain  long  at  Antioch  with  the  empress,  but  (la-Tnvh)  quickly  returned 
home.  If  I  am  not  deceived,  this  is  evidence,  that  the  avaricious  Julia,  who 
was  very  greedy  of  wealth,  found  no  great  satisfaction  in  the  discourses  of 
Origen,  who  was  a  despiser  of  wealth,  and  contented  with  poverty ;  and  there- 
fore, she  soon  sent  back  the  austere  teacher  to  Alexandria.  There  can  be  no 
doubt,  however,  that  Julia  was  well  disposed  towards  the  Christians  and  their 
religion;  and,  though  her  manners  differed  widely  from  theirs,  yet  she  felt  re- 
spect for  the  Christian  discipline,  and  for  those  who  practised  it.  And  hence  it 
is  not  strange,  that  her  son  also,  Alexander,  should  be  very  well  disposed 
towards  Christians.  For  both  in  his  childhood  and  his  manhood,  as  historians 
inform  us,  he  was  governed  solely  by  her  authority,  and  always  considered  her 
decisions  perfectly  right.  Says  Lampridius,  (in  Vita  Severi,  c.  14.  p.  901.)  :  Quum 
puer  ad  imperium  pervenisset,  fecit  cuncta  cum  matre,  ut  et  ilia  videretur  pariter 
[p.  463.]  impcrare,  mulier  sancta,  sod  avara  et  auri  atque  argenti  cupida.  And 
a  little  after,  (c.  26.  p.  924.)  he  says:  In  matrem  Mamma^am  unice  plus  fuit. 
The  distinguishing  kindness,  therefore,  of  the  emperor  towards  Christians, 
would  seem  to  be  attributable,  not  so  much  to  his  judgment  and  wisdom,  as  to 
his  deference  to  his  mother. 

(2)  There  are  some  who  rank  Alexander  Severus  himself  among  the  Chris- 
tians. And  though  this  opinion  stands  opposed  by  numerous  proofs  of  the 
depraved  superstition  by  which  his  life  was  deformed,  yet  a  man  of  great  learn- 
ing and  worth,  Paul  Ernest  Jablonski,  not  long  since,  found  a  way  to  solve  tlie 
difficulty.  In  an  ingenious  dissertation,  de  Alexandro  Severo  Christianorum 
sacris  per  Gnosticos  initiate,  he  endeavors  to  render  it  probable,  that  Alexander 
listened  to  some  Gnostic  teacher,  and  embraced  that  form  of  Christianity  which 


Alexander  Sevcrus.  15 

the  Gnostics  professed:  but  thnt  he  dissembled  his  real  opinions  before  tljo 
people,  wliich  was  :i  tliing  nllowiiblc  amon^r  Gnostics,  and  publicly  worshipped 
the  Roman  Gods,  but  privately  worshipped  Christ,  This  dissertation  of  the 
learned  Jablonski,  is  found  in  the  Miscellaneis  Lipsiensibus  nuvis,  oi' iha  ex- 
cellent  Fred.  Otto  MoickenXtom.  iv.  P.  i.  p.  66-94.)  Tiie  sole  foundation  of 
this  opinion,  (for  all  that  is  brought  from  Lampridius  and  others  in  support  of 
it,  falls  to  the  ground  without  it,)  is  an  ancient  gem,  published  by  James  de 
Wilde,  on  which  appears  the  well  known  Monogramm  of  Christ,  together  with 
this  inscription  :  Sal.  Don.  Alex.  Fil.  Ma.  Luce.  These  notes  he  would  have  us 
read  and  interpret  thus :  Salvs  Donata  Alexandro  Filio  Mammccae  Lxice  (ss. 
Christ],  this  name  being  expressed  by  the  Monogramm.)  Charles  du  Fresno 
had  previously  referred  this  gem  to  Alexander  Severus,  in  his  Diss,  de  Inferioris 
sevi  Numismat.  \  24.  contrary  to  the  views  of  Gisbert  Cuper,  who  (in  his  notes 
on  Lactantius  de  Mortibus  Persequutor.  p.  239.)  would  refer  it  to  some 
emperor's  son  of  the  name  Alexius.  Tobias  Eckhard  also,  (in  iiis  Testimonia 
non  Christianor.  de  Christo,  p.  157.)  professed  to  regard  this  gem  as  no  con- 
temptible proof,  that  Alexander  and  his  mother  privately  embraced  Christianity. 
But  it  was  the  celebrated  Jablonski  who  undertook  formally  to  state  and  defend 
this  opinion:  and  he  finds  Q  II.  p.  71.)  in  this  gem,  not  a  probable  argument, 
(as  Eckhard  deemed  it  to  be,)  but  certain  and  unanswerable  proof,  that  Alex- 
ander was  privately  initiated  a  Christian.  But  this  his  certain  and  strongest 
possible  proof,  rests  solely  on  the  two  letters  Ma.  which  are  subjoined  to  Alex. 
Fil.  in  the  gem  ;  and  which  he  thinks  cannot  possibly  denote  any  other  person 
than  Mammaea.  He  says,  (§  11.  p.  70.)  :  Sunt  autem  illse  Littera3  indicio  certis- 
simo,  nullis  machinis  elidendo,  Gemmam  banc  sculptam  esse  in  honorem  ct 
memoriam  Alexandri  Filii  Mammaae.  But,  to  tell  the  truth,  I  must  [p.  464.] 
confess  that  I  do  not  see  what  there  is,  that  compels  us  to  understand  by  tiiese 
letters  no  person  but  Mammcca.  There  were  many  names,  as  every  one  knows, 
both  of  males  and  females,  which  began  with  the  two  letters  Ma.  And  if  any 
person  should  insert  one  of  these  instead  of  Mammcea,  I  see  not  how  he  can 
be  forced  to  give  up  his  conjecture.  If  the  word  Imperalor,  or  the  abbreviation 
Imp.  had  been  prefixed  to  the  name  Alex,  the  person  might  feel  some  embar- 
rassment. But  in  the  gem,  as  the  learned  author  admits,  there  is  notiiing  that 
indicates  imperatorial  rank. 

Leaving  the  more  full  dijudication  of  this  point  to  others,  I  will  bring  for- 
ward all  the  testimonies  of  the  ancients  concerning  Alexander's  friendship  for 
the  Christians,  and  will  show  that  nothing  more  can  be  inferred  from  them,  than 
that  he  deemed  Christianity  worthy  of  toleration,  and  its  religious  worship 
neither  absurd  nor  injurious  to  the  commonwealth;  but  that  he  by  no  means 
preferred  Christianity  to  all  other  religions,  or  regarded  it  as  more  holy,  more 
true,  or  more  excellent.  In  the  first  place  Lampridius,  in  his  Life  of  the 
Emperor,  (c.  22.  p.  914.)  says:  Judaeis  privilegia  reservavit.  Christianos  esse 
passus  est.  From  this,  only  a  moderate  degree  of  benevolence  can  be  proved. 
The  emperor  favored  the  Jews,  more  than  he  did  the  Christians.  For  he  re- 
stored to  the  former,  the  privileges  of  which  they  had  been  divested  by  pre- 
ceding emperors;  while  to  the  latter  he  granted  no  rights,  but  merely  suspended 


16  Century  III. — Section  8. 

the  operation  of  the  ancient  laws  against  them;  in  other  words,  he  made  iia 
enactments  a^rainst  them.  Yet  he  did  not  abrogate  the  old,  unjust,  and  vexa- 
tious  laws,  as'xve  shall  presently  see;  so  that  the  favor  which  he  conferred  on 
tlie  Christians,  though  real,  was  yet  but  moderate.  It  is  meritorious  to  sus- 
pend  the  operation  of  iniquitous  laws;  but  far  more  so,  to  rescind  and  abolish 
them  ;  and  most  of  all,  to  guaranty  rights  infringed  upon  by  the  former  laws. 
But  to  proceed:  this  same  Lampridius,  (c.  29.  p.  930.)  tells  us,  that  the 
emperor  had  an  image  of  our  Saviour,  together  with  the  likenesses  of  certain 
great  men,  placed  in  liis  chamber  for  private  worship,  for  he  says :  Matutinis 
horis  in  Larario  suo,  (in  quo  et  divos  et  principes,  sed  optime  electos  et  animaa 
Bani'tiores,  in  quels  et  ApoUoniiim,  et  quantum  scriptor  suorrum  temporum  dicit, 
Chriatum,  Abraham  et  Orpheum,  et  hujuscemodi  Deos  habebat  et  rnajorum 
effigies,)  rem  divinam  faciebat.  A  very  learned  dissertation  was  written,  a  few 
years  ago,  by  the  distinguished  Charles  Henry  Zibich,  and  which  the  celebrated 
Mencken  deservedly  placed  in  the  Nova  Misc(illanea  Lipsiens.  (torn.  iii.  p.  42.) 
This  learned  man  aims  to  prove,  and,  in  my  opinion,  does  successfully  prove, 
that  it  cannot  be  inferred  from  this  passage,  that  Alexander  paid  divine  honors 
to  our  Saviour.  All  that  appears  from  it,  is,  that  Christ  had  a  place  assigned 
him  by  the  emperor,  among  the  animce  sanctiores^  i.  e.  the  men  distinguished  for 
sanctitv,  piety,  and  wisdom;  and  that  he  was  accounted  not  inferior  to  ApoUo- 
[p.  465.]  nius,  Abraham  and  Orpheus.  But,  not  to  be  too  strenuous,  we  will 
grant,  that  a  degree  of  probability  is  attached  to  the  opinion,  that  Lampridius 
intended  to  signify  that  a  sort  of  worship  v/as  paid  by  the  emperor  to  Jesus 
Christ:  we  will  admit  also  the  truth  of  the  focts  stated,  although  a  strenuous 
disputant  might  call  them  in  question,  since  Lampridius  mentions  only  a  single 
\vitness  for  them ;  and  lastly,  we  will  admit,  that  the  historian  here  gives  to 
Christ  the  title  of  Deus,  or  "  God ;"  and  that  the  words  :  El  hvjuscemodi  Deos 
habebat,  are  the  correct  and  true  reading,  although  many  think  they  are  not. 
Yet,  after  all  these  admissions,  it  will  not  be  proved,  that  Alexander  considered 
the  Christian  religion  as  better  and  more  holy  than  the  other  religions.  On 
the  contrary,  the  language  clearly  shows,  that  the  emperor  placed  Christianity 
among  the  plausible  and  allowable  forms  of  religion,  and  that  he  coincided  in 
opinion  with  those  men  of  his  age,  who  considered  all  religions  as  equal,  differ- 
ing only  in  rites,  regulations,  and  modes  of  worship.  ■  For  he  coupled  together 
the  three  chief  personages  of  the  three  most  distinguished  religions  of  his  times, 
the  Gentile,  the  Christian,  and  the  Jewish  ;  namely,  Orpheus,  (that  great  master 
of  the  mysteries  and  theology,  and  the  eulogist  of  the  gods.)  and  Abraham  and 
Christ :  and  this  shows,  that  he  attributed  the  same  dignity  to  each  of  those 
religions.  Moreover,  all  those  whom  Alexander  honored  with  a  place  in  his 
principal  Larariu7n,  and  esteemed  as  Divi,  were  not  in  his  opinion  holy  persons, 
and  patterns  of  virtue  and  wisdom.  For,  as  Lampridius  tells  us,  (c.  32.  p.  936.) 
Consecraverat  in  Larario  majore  inter  divos  et  optimos  (etiam)  Alexandrum 
Magnum.  And  yet  he  was  far  from  denying,  that  in  him  were  enormous  vices, 
as  well  as  virtues.  Our  author  says  (c.  30.  p.  932.) :  Condemnabat  in  Alexan- 
dro  ebrietatem  et  crudelitatem  in  amicos.  Of  no  more  weight  is  the  third  thing, 
relative  to  Alexander's  reverence  for  Christ,  recorded  by  Lampridius,  (c.  43. 


Alexander  Severus.  17 

p.  993.)  namely :  Christo  tcmpluin  faecrc  voliiit,  euniquo  inter  divos  rccipere. 
He  would,  therefore,  only  iisyign  Cln-istiunity  a  place  among  the  other  religiona, 
and  not  recommend  it  to  his  people  as  the  only  religion  that  was  true  and 
worthy  of  God.  This  will  appear  more  clearly  from  the  grouiuls  of  his  giving 
up  the  design  :  Sod  prohibitus  est  ab  iis,  qui  consulenles  hucva,  reporerant, 
omnes  Christianos  futures,  si  id  optato  evenisset,  et  tenipla  rcliqua  descrcndiu 
For  this  passsagc  does  not  refer  (as  many  have  supposed)  to  the  emperor 
Hadrian,  who  formed  the  same  project,  but  to  our  Alexander.  He  was  there- 
fore, not  unwilling  to  have  divine  honors' pviid  to  Christ;  but  he  would  h.ive  it 
60  done,  that  the  Roman  gods  should  not  be  neglected.  And  when  he  learned, 
that  these  gods  would  be  despised,  if  Christ  should  be  enrolled  among  them, 
he  would  rather  have  divine  honors  withheld  from  Christ,  though  w^orthy  to  re- 
ceive them,  than  see  the  gods  neglected  and  despised.  I  can  conceive  how  the 
emperor  may  have  been  led  to  think  of  enrolling  Christ  among  the  [p.  46G.] 
gods  of  tlie  Romans.  The  old  imperial  laws  against  the  Christians  were  an 
obstacleto  his  placing  them  beyond  all  danger  of  punishmentor  injury,  which  his 
mother  ardently  desired ;  and  yet  he  was  afraid  to  annul  these  laws  precipitately, 
lest  he  should  irritate  the  people  and  the  priests.  And  therefore,  to  accomplish 
what  he  and  his  mother  had  at  heart,  he  tried  to  get  Christ  admitted  among  the 
gods  of  the  republic;  because,  if  this  were  done,  those  old  edicts  against  the 
Christians  would  of  course  foil  to  the  ground,  and  yet  would  not  be  subverted 
by  him,  but  by  the  Senate  who  sanctioned  Christ's  apotheosis. 

As  for  what  Lampridius  tells  us  (  ^  45.  p.  997.)  of  his  copying  the  Christians' 
method  of  appointing  public  functionaries,  though  it  was  in  some  measure 
paying  honor  to  the  Christians, yet  in  aless  degree  than  learned  men  suppose.  The 
stjitement  is:  Ubi  aliquos  voluisset  vel  rectores  provinciis  dare,  vel  praepositos 

facere,  vel  procuratores,  nomina  eorum  proponebat dicebatque  grave  esse, 

quum  id  Christiani  et  Judasi  f^icerent  in  praedicandis  sacerdotibus,  qui  ordinandi 
sunt,  non  fieri  in  provinciarum  rectoribus,  quibus  et  fortunae  hominum  commit- 
terentur  et  capita.  Not  to  notice  that  the  Christians  are  here  associated  with 
the  Jews,  the  comparison  which  the  emperor  makes  between  Christian  priests 
and  the  Roman  governors  of  provinces,  shows  that, in  his  view,  the  functions  of 
a  Christian  priest  were  less  important  and  salutary,  than  the  functions  of  magis- 
trates. For,  in  the  language  of  the  schools,  he  reasoned  from  the  less  to  the 
greater.  If  such  caution  is  exercised  in  the  election  of  Christian  priests,  what 
caution  should  be  exercised  in  appointing  magistrates,  to  whom  are  entrusted 
the  lives  and  fortunes  of  the  citizens  ?  No  man  could  talk  thus,  if  he  believed 
tliat  the  Christian  priests  showed  men  the  way  to  salvation,  and  taught  them 
the  true  method  of  obtaining  peace  with  God.  Such  a  man  could  not  esteem 
the  temporal  life  and  prosperity  of  the  citizens,  as  more  important  than  the  sal- 
vation of  their  souls,  for  which  the  Christian  priests  labored. 

Similar  remarks  are  applicable  to  the  judgment  which  Alexander  is  said  to 
have  passed,  in  a  litigated  case  between  some  Christians  and  the  hucksters ;  in 
Lampridius,  c.  49.  p.  1003:  Quum  Christiani  quemdam  locum,  qui  fuerat  pub- 
licus,  occupassent,  contra  propinarii  dicerent,  sibi  cum  dcberi  ;  rescripsit,  melius 
esse,  ut  quomodocunque  illic  Deus  colatur,  quam  propuiariis  dedutur.     These 

VOL.  IL  2 


18  Century  IILScctian  9. 

words  show  a  religious  mind,  and  are  somewliat  commendatory  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion  ;  lor  the  emperor  admitted  that  the  Christiana  worshipped  God ; 
and,  on  tliat  account,  the  state  could  tolerate  them.  And  yet  he  indicates,  that 
the  Roman  mode  of  worshipping  God  was  preferable  to  the  Christian ;  or,  at 
least,  the  word  Quomodocunqiie  leaves  it  doubtful,  whether  the  Christian  modo 
of  serving  God  was  to  be  ai)proved  or  was  faulty.  Such  language  does  not  in- 
dicate a  man  who  viewed  Jesus  Christ  as  tiie  Son  of  God,  and  the  only  ( I  will  not 
Bay  Saviour,  hut)  Instructor  of  the  human  race,  and  whose  doctrines  and  precepts 
[p.  467.]  were  more  just  and  holy  than  any  others.  What  the  same  Lampridius 
tells  us,  (c.  51.  p.  1007.)  that  Alexander  was  so  much  pleased  with  this  precept, 
(which  he  had  learned  either  from  Jews  or  from  Christians)  Quod  iibi  fieri  non 
vis,  alter i  ne  feccris,  that  he  ordered  it  to  be  inscribed  on  the  palace  and  on  the 
public  works,  has  plainly  no  decisive  force  in  the  question  before  us.  For  the 
most  virulent  enemies  of  the  Christians  did  not  deny,  that  Christianity  con- 
tained many  beautiful  and  incomparable  moral  precepts.  Nor  does  the  state- 
ment of  Eusehius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  1.  vi.  e.  28.  p.  228.)  that  tie  family  of  Alexan- 
der was  full  of  Christians,  much  assist  those  who  maintain,  that  he  regarded 
Christianity  as  the  best  and  holiest  of  all  religions,  notwithstanding  he  declined 
a  public  profession  of  it.  For  what  wonder  is  it,  if  an  eraperor,  obsequious  in 
everything  to  a  mother  who  loved  the  Christians,  suffered  her  to  take  Christians 
into  her  family  ?  One  who  placed  all  religions  upon  a  level,  and  considered 
them  as  differing  only  as  to  forms  or  modes  of  worshipping  the  Deity,  might 
consistently  admit  men  of  all  religions  to  become  his  servants. 

(3)  Lactantius  says  (Divinar.  Instit.  1.  v.  c.  11.  p.  627.  ed  Biinem.)  :  Nam 
et  constitutiones  sacrilegae  et  disputationes  jurisperitorara  (in  Christianos) 
leguntur  injustse.  Domitius  de  officio  proconsulis  rescripta  principum  nefaria 
collegit,  ut  doceret,  quibus  poenis  adfici  oporteret  eos,  qui  se  cultores  Dei  confi- 
terentur.  The  most  learned  men  have  no  hesitation  in  saying,  that  this  Domi- 
tius, an  enemy  of  Christians,  was  Domitius  Ulpianus,  whom  Alexander  entrusted 
with  the  chief  administration  of  the  state.  See  Francis  Baldioin's  Coram,  ad. 
edicta  Principum  Roman,  de  Christianis,  p.  101.  &lc.  ed.  Gundling.  This  man, 
therefore,  by  collecting  together  the  imperatorial  laws  against  the  Christians, 
may  have  aimed  to  moderate  the  benevolence  of  his  master  towards  Christians, 
and  to  intercept  in  a  measure  the  effects  of  his  clemency.  And  of  course,  it  is 
not  beyond  credibility,  that  under  this  mildest  and  best  of  emperors,  the  judges 
in  several  places  governed  their  conduct  towards  Christians,  by  the  laws  which 
Ulpinn  thus  spread  before  them  in  a  collated  form,  rather  than  by  the  wishes 
of  an  emperor  who  had  not  courage  to  repeal  those  laws.  Certain  it  is,  that 
in  the  Martyrologies  and  other  books,  we  meet  with  not  a  few  examples  of 
Christians  put  to  death  under  Alexander.  See  the  Martyrologium  Romanum, 
diem  11  mam  Octob.  et  diem  22dam  Novemb.  Yet  Theodore  Ruinart,  (Praef. 
ad  Acta  Martyr,  sincera  et  Selecta,  ^  47.  48.)  does  not  conceal  the  facts,  that 
he  regarded  most  of  them  as  dubious. 

§   IX.     The  Persecution  under  Maximin.    This  tranquility  of  the 

Christians  was  disturbed  by  Maximin  the  Thracian,  whom  the 


Persecution  under  Maxlmin.  19 

soldiers  created  emperor,  wlicn  Alexander  Severus  was  slain,  in 
the  year  285.  Maximin  was  actuated,  not  so  muck  by  [p.  468.] 
hatred  of  Christianity,  as  hj  fear^  lest  the  Christians  should  sock 
to  avenge  the  slaughter  of  their  beloved  Alexander ;  and  he 
therefore  did  not  order  all  Christians  promiscuously  to  be  exe- 
cuted, but  only  the  bishops  and  doctors ;  hoping  that  when  these 
were  removed,  the  Christians,  being  deprived  of  their  leaders 
and  guides,  would  remain  quiet  and  attempt  nothing  to  his  in- 
jur3^(')  Perhaps  also,  the  tyrant  did  not  purpose  the  death  of 
all  Christian  bishops,  but  only  of  those  whom  he  had  known  to 
be  the  friends  and  intimates  of  Alexander.  It  is  certain,  that 
very  few  cases  are  recorded  of  bishops  or  doctors,  who  honored 
Christ  by  martyrdom,  or  by  any  severe  sufferings,  under  this 
emperor.(")  We  know,  indeed,  that  in  some  of  the  provinces, 
during  this  reign,  the  sufferings  and  calamities  of  the  Christians 
were  more  extensive,  and  reached  all  classes ;  but  these  exten- 
sive calamities  are  not  to  be  traced  to  the  emperor's  edict,  but 
either  to  insurrections  of  the  populace,  who  regarded  Christianity 
as  the  cause  of  their  misfortunes,  or  to  the  injustice  and  cruelty 
of  tlie  governors.  And  hence,  we  readily  agree  with  those  who 
maintain,  that  the  Christians  were  harrassed,  in  various  places, 
during  the  whole  three  years  reign  of  Maximin.i^) 

(1)  Eusebius  states,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vi.  c.  28.  p.  225.)  that  Maximin,  burn- 
ing with  hatred  to  the  family  of  Alexander  Severus,  which  was  filled  with 
Christians,  commenced  a  persecution  against  the  Christians.  But  he  adds,  that 
the  emperor  ordered  only  the  bishops  (dpx°^'^^s  tcjv  UKKno-ibJv,)  to  be  slain,  as 
being  the  authors  of  evangelical  insLrucLion  {diriovc  T>ic  Kara  YJuayyiXiov 
i'iS^a7Ka\ias).  These  statements  are  in  conflict;  if  I  am  not  greatly  mistaken. 
If  his  hatred  to  the  family  of  Alexander,  had  been  the  cause  of  this  persecution, 
he  would  not  have  poured  his  wrath  upon  the  bishops,  who,  none  of  them,  be- 
longed to  the  family  of  Alexander,  but  must  have  attacked  and  slain  the  family 
of  Alexander  itself.  This  course  would  have  gratified  his  passion;  but  the 
punishing  of  the  bishops,  brought  no  evil  or  detriment  to  the  surviving  ministers 
and  servants  of  Alexander's  household.  This  difficulty  will  be  removed,  if  we 
understand  the  (xdTOf)  anger  or  hatred,  in  Eusebius,  to  denote /ear  combined  with 
hatred:  for  those  whom  we  dread  or  fear,  we  naturally  hale.  The  tyrant  was 
afraid,  lest  the  family  of  the  murdered  emperor  should  conspire  against  iiim,  and 
strive  to  avenge  the  death  of  their  excellent  lord ;  and  therefore,  he  pursued 
them  with  violent  hatred.  To  free  himself  from  this /ear,  he  resolved  on  the 
slaughter  of  the  Christian  bishops,  hoping  that  when  they  were  put  out  of 
the  way,  the  adherents  and  servants  of  Alexander,  being  deprived  of  [p.  469.] 


20  Century  IIL— Section  9. 

their  iidvisors  and  guides,  would  attempt  nothing  very  formidable  against  him. 
Undoubtedly,  some  one  who  professed  to  be  acquainted  with  Christian  aftairs 
had  sug^a^sted  to  the  emperor,  that  the  Christians  followed  implicitly  the 
guidance  and  will  of  their  bishops;  and  therefore,  that  he  would  have  nothing 
to  fear,  if  these  bishops  were  out  of  the  way.  Unless  this  explanation  be  ad- 
mitted, I  see  not  how  the  slaughter  of  the  Christian  bishops  could  originate 
from  hatred  to  the  family  of  Alexander. 

(2)  Although  Eusebius  says,  that  Maximin  commanded  all  the  Christian 
bishops  and  teachers  to  be  put  to  death,  I  yet  very  much  doubt,  whether  the 
tyrant's  edict  was  so  dreadfully  cruel.  I  suspect,  rather,  that  the  emperor's 
enmity  extended  only  to  those  Christian  teachers,  who  had  been  intimate  with 
Alexander  and  his  mother,  and  whom  the  former  knowingly  permitted  to  instil 
the  Christian  ftiith  into  a  large  part  of  his  family.  The  chief  of  tliese  was 
Origcn,  who  was  well  known  to  have  been  invited  to  the  court,  not  long  before : 
and  therefore  him  especially,  the  tyrant  wished  to  have  arrested  and  put  to 
death.  This  we  learn  from  Orosius,  who  says,  (Histor.  L.  vii.  c.  19.  p.  509.  ed. 
Havercamp.):  Qui  maxime  propter  christianam  Alexandri  et  matris  ejus  Mum- 
ma3ae  familiam,  persequutionem  in  sacerdotes  et  clericos,  id  est,  doctores,  vel 
praecipuc  propter  Origenem  presbyterum  miserat.  And  it  is  well  known,  that 
in  order  to  avoid  the  emperor's  fury,  Origen  kept  himself  concealed  at  Caesarea 
for  two  years.  Being  unable  to  find  him,  the  tyrant  vented  his  indignation 
upon  his  two  most  intimate  friends,  Ambrose,  a  man  of  great  distinction,  and 
Protocteius  a  presbyter;  who  were  first  treated  with  great  indignity  and  abuse, 
and  then  banished  to  Germany  by  order  of  the  emperor.  See  Eusebius,  Hist. 
Eccles.  L,  vi.  c.  29.  p.  229.  Besides  these,  very  few  only,  here  and  there  one, 
of  the  Christian  priests  and  bishops,  suffered  greatly  under  Maximin.  Says 
Sulpiiius  Severus,  (Hist.  Sacra,  L.  ii.  c.  32.  p.  247.)  :  Maximinus  nonnuUarum 
ecclcsiarum  Clericos  vexavit.  Now,  whence  this  paucity  of  martyrs  and  con- 
fessors among  the  bishops  and  teachers,  if  the  edict  of  Maximin  commanded 
all  Christian  bishops  every  where,  to  be  seized  and  put  to  death?  Numerous 
examples  of  martyred  clergymen  under  this  very  cruel  emperor,  would  have 
come  down  to  us,  if  the  edict  had  ordered  the  bishops  and  teachers  to  be  indis- 
criminately put  to  death.  But  all  that  is  obscure  in  this  matter,  becomes  clear 
and  obvious,  if  we  suppose  that  hatred  or  fear  of  the  family  of  Alexander  was, 
as  ancient  writers  expressly  state,  the  cause  of  this  persecution  of  the  Christian 
teachers:  and  this  alone  may  lead  us  to  conclude,  that  the  emperor's  rage 
was  only  against  those  priests,  who  had  been  intimate  with  Alexander  and  his 
fiimily. 

[p.  470]  (3)  Those  who  treat  of  the  persecution  under  Maximin,  trace  all 
the  evils  of  the  church  during  his  reign,  to  this  edict  of  the  emperor.  But  in  this 
they  certainly  err.  The  emperor  only  wished  to  get  rid  of  some  of  the  bishops 
and  teachers.  And  therefore,  the  proceedings  against  all  classes  of  Christians, 
in  one  place  and  another,  must  be  ascribed  to  other  causes.  And  of  this  fact, 
those  early  writers  who  treat  of  these  general  persecutions,  have  not  left  us  in 
ignorance.  Origen  tells  us,  (torn,  xxviii.  in  Matth.  in  his  0pp.  torn.  i.  p.  137, 
ed.  Lat.)  that  earthquakes  occurred  in  some  places,  and  that  the  people,  as  usual, 


Gordian  and  Philip.  21 

attributed  tlie  cahimity  to  the  Christians,  and  therefore  inflicted  great  evils  up- 
on them.  Sec  also  liis  Exhortatio  ad  Martyres,  which  he  wrote  in  the  reign  of 
Maximin.  Tlio  same  cause,  and  not  the  cruelty  of  Maximin,  produced  the  suf- 
ferings of  the  Christians  in  Cappadocia  and  in  the  adjacent  regions;  which, 
liowever,  were  augmented  by  the  injustice  of  Serenianus  the  governor.  Thus 
FlrmiUian  testifies,  (in  his  Epistle  to  Cyprian,  among  the  Epistlolae  Cyprianicae, 
No.  Ixxv.  p.  146,  ed  Baluz.) :  Ante  viginta  et  duos  fere  annos,  teraporibus  post 
Alexandrum  Imperatorem,  multae,  istic  conflietationes  et  pressurae  acciderunt, 
vel  in  commune  omnibus  hominibus,  vel  privatim  Christianis;  terrae  etiam  motua 
pUirimi  et  frequenter  extitcrunt,  ut  et  per  Cappadociam  et  per  Pontum  multa 
Bubruerent,  quaedam  etiam  civitates  in  profundum  receptae  dirupti  soli  hiatu 
devorarentur,  ut  ex  hoc  (not  in  consequence  of  the  imperial  edict.)  persccutio 
quoque  gravis  adversum  nos  Christiani  nominis  fieret,  quae  post  longam  retro 
aetatis  pacem  repente  oborta  de  inopinato  et  insueto  malo  ad  turbandum  populum 
nostrum  terribilior  effecta  est.  Serenianus  tunc  fuit  in  nostra  provincia  praeses, 
acerbus  et  dims  persecutor.  Hence,  the  Christians  were  not  persecuted  in  all 
the  Roman  provinces,  but  only  in  those  which  had  previously  suffered  greatly 
from  these  natural  calamities.  For  thus  Firmillian  proceeds :  In  hac  autem 
perturbatione  constituti-;  fidelibus,  et  hue  atque  illuc  persecutionis  metu  fugien- 
tibus,  et  partrias  suas  relinquentibus,  atque  in  alias  partes  regionum  transeunti 
bus,  (erat  enim  transeundi  facultas,  eo  quod  persecutio  ilia  non  fer  totum  mun- 
dum,  sed  localis  fuisset,)  eraersit,  &c.  But,  certainly,  the  persecution  would  have 
pervaded  every  part  of  the  Roman  world,  if  it  had  been  commanded  by  an  impera- 
torial  edict.  To  express  frankly  my  own  views,  I  can  hardly  persuade  myself 
that  Maximin  issued  any  decree  against  the  Christian  priests  and  bishops;  but  I 
suppose  that,  after  the  death  of  Alexander,  he  merely  ordered  the  arrest  of  Origen 
and  a  few  others,  whom  he  knew  to  have  been  intimate  with  the  murdered  em- 
peror and  his  mother;  and  that,  after  a  short  time,  other  objects  occupying  his 
mind,  and  the  state  of  things  being  changed,  this  sudden  burst  of  passion  subsided. 

§  X.  The  tranquillity  under  Gordian  and  Philip.  Maxi-  [p.  471.] 
mill  being  slain,  by  tlie  African  legions,  in  the  year  238,  Gordian^  a 
mere  boy,  was  created  emperor;  and,  by  means  of  his  father-in-law, 
Misitheus,  a  man  of  great  energy,  he  so  conducted  the  government 
for  six  years,  as  to  place  the  Christians  in  perfect  safety.  But, 
being  unable  to  prevent  the  murder  of  Misitheus  by  Phihp  the 
Arabian,  he  was,  the  next  year,  himself  slain  by  the  same  man, 
who  had  usurped  the  office  of  PrcCtorian  Praifect.  From  tlie 
year  244  this  M.  Julius  Philip^  with  his  son  of  the  same  name, 
as  the  Ciesar,  governed  the  Roman  empire  for  almost  five  years, 
and  showed  himself  exceedingly  friendly  to  the  Christians.  From 
this  fact  arose  the  report,  which  was  propagated  in  the  subsequent 
ages  with  great  unanimity  among  tlio  writers,  that  botli  tlicso 
Philips  privately  renounced  the  superstition  of  the  futile  gods, 


oo  Century  III.— Section    10. 

and  embraced  Christianity.  But  wlictlicr  tliis  report  states  a  fact, 
or  only  a  vulgar  fable,  originating  from  the  kindness  of  the  em- 
perors towards  Christians,  has  been  disputed  with  great  earnest- 
ness by  the  learned.  Whoever  will  candidly  and  impartially 
weigh  the  arguments  on  both  sides  of  the  question,  will  see,  that 
arguments  are  adduced  by  both  parties,  which,  on  examination, 
appear  weak  and  powerless ;  and  that  there  is  nothing  to  fully 
settle  the  point,  and  compel  us  to  accede  to  either  party  in  the 
dispute.(') 

(1)  Tlierc  are  extant  many  very  grave  and  learned  discussions  respect- 
inn-  the  renunciation  of  the  old  superstitions  and  reception  of  Christianity  by 
the  two  Philips;  some  exclusively  devoted  to  the  subject,  and  others  treating 
of  it  incidentally  and  cursorily.  The  most  important  of  them  are  enumerated 
by  Jo.  Alb.  Fabricius,  (Lux  salutaris  Evangelii  toti  orbi  exoriens,  p.  235) 
But  to  his  list,  if  it  were  necessary,  large  additions  might  easily  be  made  of  per- 
sons of  high  reputation,  among  both  the  ancients  and  the  moderns.  Oinitting 
a  work  of  so  little  importance,  we  will  recount  the  principal  arguments  on  both 
sides,  so  that  those  desirous  to  understand  the  controversy,  may  obtain  their 
object  with  but  little  labor.  In  the  first  place,  the  reader  should  be  apprised, 
that  arguments  are  adduced  on  both  sides,  which  scarcely  deserve  to  rank 
among  slender  conjectures.  Such,  for  example,  are  those  from  certain  coins, — 
from  Origen's  journey  to  Arabia, — from  the  austerity  of  the  younger  Philip, — 
from  certain  just  and  equitable  laws  of  the  elder  Philip,  and  from  other  topics 
adduced  in  proof  of  the  sincere  regard  of  the  Philips  for  Christ,  but  which  are  of 
no  weight,  and  vanish  when  touched.  Nor  are  those  more  solid  which  are  de- 
[p.  472.]  rived  from  the  celebration  of  the  secular  games  by  Philip, — from  the 
superstitious  marks  on  coins  bearing  his  likeness, — from  the  apotheosis  of 
Philip, — and  from  some  other  topics,  in  proof  that  the  emperors  were  averse 
from  Christianity.  We  propose  to  bring  forward  only  those  arguments  which 
seem  worthy  of  some  regard,  and  may  have  influence  on  sober  minds. 

Among  the  arguments  of  those  who  wish  to  prove  Philip  a  Christian,  the 
first  place  is  due  to  the  testimony  of  Eusebius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  1.  vi.  e.  34.  p.  232,) 
who  reports  from  tradition  :  "That  on  the  vigils  of  Easter,  the  emperor  wished 
to  be  a  participator  with  the  rest  of  the  people  in  the  prayers  of  the  church,  but 
that  the  bishop  would  not  permit  him  to  be  present,  until  he  had  made  confes- 
sion of  the  enormous  sins  he  had  committed,  and  had  taken  his  stand  among 
the  penitents :  and  that  the  emperor  was  not  displeased,  but  conformed  to  the 
bisliop's  wishes."  Eusebius  mentions  neither  the  place  where  this  occurred,  nor 
the  name  of  the  bishop  who  ventured  to  exclude  the  emperor  from  the  church. 
But  from  the  narrative  of  Leontius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  (an  ancient  writer  who 
lived  in  the  time  of  Constantius,)  preserved  in  the  Chronicon  Paschale,  edited 
among  the  Byzantine  Historians,  by  Carol  du  Fresne,  it  appears,  that  it  was 
Babylas,  bishop  of  Antioch,   and  afterwards  a  martyr  under  Decius,  who  as- 


Was  Philip  a    Ckri^tlan  ?  03 

sumod  so  iiiueli  authority  over  tlie  emperor.  See  the  Ckronicon  Paschale,  thca. 
X.  et  xiii.  ;ui  juin.  1253.  p.  270.  Chnjsostom  also,  in  liis  Oralioti  in  honor  of  St. 
Babylas,  (opp.  toin.  i.  p.  658,  659,  ed.  German.)  mentions  this  heroie  act  of  the 
bishop,  but  without  giving  the  name  of  the  emperor.  To  this  testimony  of 
Eiisebius,  learned  men  add  his  declaration  in  his  Ckronicon,  nd  ann.  2-16.  in  the 
translation  of  Jerome:  Philippus  primus  omnium  ex  Romanis  Imperaloribus 
Chrislianus  fait:  with  which  Jerome  himself  agrees,  in  his  Catalog.  Scriplor. 
Ecc  PS.  cap.  de  Origcne. — To  break  down  this  chief  bulwark  of  those  who  place 
Piiilip  among  the  Christians,  those  of  the  contrary  opinion  exert  themselves 
greatly:  and  Fred  Spanheitn,  (in  his  Dis.  de  Christianismo  Philippi  Arabis,  ^  11 
&c.  0pp.  torn.  ii.  p.  418.)  has  carefully  collected  all  the  arguments,  which  can 
be  thought  of.  Yet  they  all  resolve  tiiemselvcs  into  a  few,  if  we  carefully  ex- 
amine the  proh'x  discussions  of  these  great  men.  The  amount  is,  that  Eitsebius 
does  not  cite  any  specific  and  suitable  testimony,  in  support  of  his  narrative ; 
but  says  himself,  that  he  learned  what  he  states  from  common  fame :  his  words 
are,  Kart;^"  ^«V°f »  /ame  has  it : — that  Leontius  also  drew  his  account  merely 
front  public  rumor,  handed  down  by  tradition,  xari  ^iS'ix^v,  per  traditionem : — 
that  Chnjsostom,  in  his  statement,  committed  more  than  one  error,  and  more- 
over, does  not  give  the  name  of  the  emperor.  But  all  these  objections  will  not 
be  sufficient  proof,  to  discerning  minds,  that  the  conversion  of  Philip  to  Chris- 
tianity must  have  been  a  fable.  For  who  would  deem  it  conclusive  reasonino-, 
to  say :  This  or  that  is  reported  only  by  fame,  and  not  in  any  book  or  author ; 
and  therefore  it  is  not  true  ?  We  know  innumerable  things,  which  [p.  473.] 
have  come  to  us  only  through  the  medium  of  fame  or  continuous  tradition, 
without  being  written  down  by  the  contemporary  writers :  and  yet  they  may  be 
perfectly  true.  And  on  the  other  hand,  many  things  are  false,  for  which  the 
testimony  of  many  ancient  writers  may  be  adduced.  Fame  is  a  reporter  both 
of  truth  and  falsehood.  It  is,  therefore,  not  sufficient  proof  of  the  falsehood  of 
a  story,  to  show  that  the  historians  base  it  only  on  fame:  Investigation  is  to  be 
made,  whether  reliance  should,  or  should  not,  be  placed  on  this  fame.  Now 
the  testimonies  adduced,  put  it  beyond  controversy,  that  in  the  fourth  and 
fifth  centuries,  over  a  great  part  of  the  Christian  world,  fame  declared  Philip  to 
have  been  a  convert  to  Christianity,  In  the  thing  itself,  tliere  is  nothing  absurd, 
or  incredible.  On  the  contrary,  there  are  somethings  to  support  it:  among 
which,  and  not  the  least,  is  this:  that  what,  in  his  History  Eusehius  states  as 
derived  from  fame,  in  his  Chronicon  he  states  as  being  certain :  and  in  this  ho 
is  followed  by  Jerome,  as  already  shown.  Consequently,  unless  the  truth  of 
this /awe  can  be  overthrown  by  other  and  more  potent  arguments,  there  must  be 
reason  for  doubting  at  least,  whether  this  fame  is  to  be  credited  or  disbelieved. 
Another  argument  adduced  by  those  who  contend  for  Philip's  conversion  to 
Christianity,  is  drawn  from  the  Epistles  written  by  Origen  to  this  emperor  and 
to  his  consort  Severa,  mentioned  by  Eusehius,  (Uht.  Eccles.  1.  vi.  c.  36.  j).  233.) 
To  elude  the  force  of  this  argument,  the  learned  men  who  exclude  Philip  from 
the  class  of  Christians,  advance  many  things,  which  truly  had  better  have  been 
omitted.  They,  for  example,  question  the  genuineness  of  those  epistles;  they 
doubt  whether  Eusebius  ever  saw  them,  &,c.     They  remark,  tiiat  Eusehius  imd 


24  Century  IILSeciion  10. 

Jerome,  who  both  speak  of  these  epistles,  do  not  in  all  respects  agree ;  for 
Eusehius  says,  Origen  wrote  to  the  emperor's  spouse,  and  Jerome,  that  he  wrote 
to  the  emperor's  mother.  But  these  are  trivial  objections,  and  easily  answered 
by  the  opposite  party.  The  case  did  not  require  so  elaborate  a  discussion  t 
for  there  is  nothing  in  these  epistles  merely,  which  can  materially  aid  the  ad- 
vocates of  Philip's  Christianity,  because  neither  Eusebius  nor  Jerome  tells  what 
was  in  them.  No  wise  and  careful  man  will  ever  reason  thus:  A  certain  Chris- 
tain  teacher  wrote  a  letter  to  this  or  that  man,  therefore  the  person  written  to 
was  a  Christian.  For  why  may  not  a  Christain  write  to  one  who  is  not  a  Chris- 
tian? A  Christian  may,  by  letter,  exhort  a  person  alienated  from  Christianity, 
to  become  a  Christian.  Or  he  may  intreat  him  to  be  kind  and  indulgent  to 
Christians ;  or  may  address  letters  to  him  on  other  subjects.  And,  assuredly, 
if  Eusebius  had  found  in  these  epistles  any  clear  proofs  of  the  conversion  of 
Philip  and  his  mother  to  Christianity,  he  would  not  have  omitted  the  notice  of 
[p.  474.J  so  important  a  fact;  neither  would  he,  when  just  before  treating  of 
Philip's  exclusion  from  the  Christian  worship  by  a  bishop,  have  appealed  solely 
to  the  authority  of  tradition.  He  would,  doubtless,  have  said :  "  I  have  seen  the 
epistles  of  Origen  to  Philip,  from  which  I  know  with  certainty,  that  he  adhered 
to  the  Christian  religion." 

Of  no  more  weight  is  the  third  argument  of  those  who  make  Philip  a  Chris- 
tian, derived  from  the  Acta  S.  Ponlii ;  (edited,  with  improvements,  by  Steph. 
Baluze,  Miscellaneor.  torn.  ii.  p.  493.)  For,  the  advocates  of  the  Romish 
church  themselves  dare  not  deny,  that  these  Acta  are  of  no  authority,  or  at 
most,  of  very  little;  and  that  they  state  many  things,  respecting  Pontius,  the 
reputed  instrument  of  Philip's  conversion,  and  respecting  Philfp  himself,  which 
no  sober,  intelligent  man,  acquainted  with  antiquity,  will  ever  admit  to  be  true. 
It  is  probable  that  this  whole  fiible  was  invented  by  some  person  who  wished 
to  add  sti-ength  and  authority  to  the  old  story  of  Philip's  being  a  Christian. 
Lastly,  those  who  place  Philip  among  Christians,  adduce  a  host  of  witnesses 
from  the  sixth  century  downwards.  For  all  the  Greek  and  Latin  historians, 
since  that  century,  and  among  the  Arabians,  EiUijchius  (in  Annal.  Eceles. 
Alexandr.)  and  Ahulpharaius  (in  Historia  Dynastiarum,)  with  united  voice,  de- 
clare that  Philip  was  a  Christian.  But  those  who  deny  that  Philip  was  a  Chris- 
tian, treat  this  great  army  with  contempt,  and  pronounce  them  unworthy  of  re- 
gard ;  because  they  all  borrowed  from  the  narrative  of  Eusebius,  so  that  the 
whole  story  falls  back  upon  him.  And  learned  men  say  this,  with  some  ap- 
pearance of  truth.  For  many  of  those  witnesses  use  the  very  words  of  Euse- 
bius in  his  Chronicon,  and  others  depart  very  little  from  them.  Yet  it  must  be 
confessed,  that  some  of  them  express  themselves  as  if  they  had  other  authori- 
ties for  their  statement,  besides  Eusebius. — As  to  the  various  other  arguments 
in  favor  of  Philip's  Christianity,  derived  from  some  of  his  coins, — from  certain 
of  his  enactments, — and  from  the  regard  for  Christ,  exhibited  by  his  wife 
Severa ;  though  deemed  very  weighty  by  some  great  men,  they  are  too  far- 
fetched to  be  arguments  of  any  real  force.  We  will  therefore  pass  over  to  the 
other  side,  and  examine  the  arguments  of  those  who  maintain  that  Philip  was 
not  a  Christian.     These  also  adduce  many  arguments,  which  may  be  easily  con- 


Was  Fhilij)  a    Christian?  05 

futcd.     Wc  will  only  notice  those  arguments,  in  which  there  appears  a  deforce 
of  weight  not  to  be  contemned. 

In  theirs/  place,  they  remind  us  of  the  f;\ct,  that  all  the  writers  of  impera- 
torial  liistory  are  wholly  silent,  as  to  any  conversion  of  Philip  to  the  Christian 
faith.  And  they  add,  that  many  of  the  Christian  writers,  and  Eusehius  at  the 
head  of  them,  (in  Vita  Constantini  Mag.)  distinctly  state,  that  ConsLanlinc  the 
Great,  was  the  first  of  all  the  emperors  that  embraced  Christianity.  But  the 
dissidents  are  for  from  quailing  before  this  argument.  They  say,  that  Philip 
did  not  profess  Christianity,  openly  and  publicly,  but  only  in  private  [p.  475.] 
and  secretly ;  so  that  he  publicly  worshipped  the  gods,  and  dissembled  his 
change  of  faith,  while  in  private  he  attended  the  Christian  worship.  And  henco 
the  writers  of  Roman  history,  and  also  Julian,  and  some  others,  were  ignorant 
of  his  renunciation  of  the  old  religions,  ^nd  they  say,  that  the  Christian 
authors,  who  declare  Constaniine  to  be  the  first  Christian  emperor,  are  not  to 
be  understood  as  speaking  absolutely,  but  only  as  representing  Constaniine  to 
be  the  first  of  all  to  profess  Christ,  openly,  fully,  and  without  disguise ;  and,  on 
that  account,  he  was  properly  and  deservedly  called  i\\Q  first  Christian  emperor. 
This  reply,  it  is  difficult  to  divest  entirely  of  all  force;  although  it  is  not  free 
from  exceptions.  It  appears  to  me,  that  Eusehius  himself  affords  it  some  sup- 
port, in  his  Life  of  Constantine,  (L.  IV.  c.  74.  p.  563.)  where  he  speaks  of  Con- 
stantine  as  being  the  first  of  all  the  emperors  up  to  that  time,  who  openhj  pro- 
fessed himself  a  Christian.  'E;Tt  (xovui  t^jv  iruTTOTi  Xi'""^"^^'^^  J'tafavwi  diroS'ii^^^d-ci'Tt 
KovrrcLvrivcf).  When  he  says  that  Constantine  was  the  first  who  openly 
(S-ictf-xvCis)  worshipped  Christ,  he  seems  to  intimate,  that  there  were  others  be- 
fore him,  who  (d<r;a?*vt3f)  secretly  and  covertly  professed  Christ ;  and  thus  he 
apparently  explains  the  meaning  of  all  those,  who,  with  himself,  had  placed  Con- 
stantine first  among  the  Christian  emperors. 

Secondly,  the  very  flagitious  life  which  Philip  led,  both  before  and  after  his 
access  to  his  imperatorial  power,  is  urged  by  learned  men,  in  opposition  to  such 
as  would  account  him  a  Christian.  Although  many  go  too  fiir  in  explaining 
and  amplifying  this  argument,  and  set  down  some  things  as  flagitious,  which 
deserve  a  milder  and  softer  name  ;  yet  it  is  beyond  controversy,  that  very  deep 
stains  are  found  upon  the  life  and  conduct  of  this  emperor.  But  I  think,  those 
change  the  question,  who  would  infer,  from  the  vices  and  crimes  of  Philip, 
that  he  disbelieved  the  Christian  religion.  The  question  is  not,  whether  Philip 
was  worthy  of  the  name  of  Christian,  and  lived  a  life  conformable  to  the  pre- 
cepts of  Christianity.  If  such  were  the  question,  the  argument  from  his 
flagitious  life,  would  be  wholly  unexceptionable.  But  the  question  is,  whether 
he  regarded  the  Christian  religion  as  more  excellent  and  true  than  the  Roman, 
or,  in  other  words,  as  divine.  This  he  might  do,  and  still  lead  a  very  wicked 
life.  If  all  those  are  to  be  stricken  from  the  list  of  Christians,  whose  morals 
and  actions  violate  the  precepts  of  Christianity,  Constantine  himself,  can 
hardly,  if  at  all,  maintain  his  place  among  Christian  emperors. 

Thirdly,  learned  men  say,  the  secular  games,  celebrated  by  Philip  with 
great  pomp,  in  the  thousandth  year  of  the  city,  are  opposed  to  the  supposition 
that  he  had  embraced  Christianity.     For  these  games  originated  in  the  supersti- 


26  Century  III.— Section  11. 

tion  of  the  old  Romans,  were  sacred  to  the  gods,  and  embraced  rites  that  were 
[p.  476.]  absurd  and  wholly  incongruous  with  Christianity;  and  yet  Philip 
omitted  none  of  these  sncrilegious  ceremonies,  he  immolated  victims  to  the  gods, 
and  exhibited  the  customary  spectacles  in  the  Campus  Martins,  in  the  circus, 
and  in  the  theatre ;  and  of  course,  he  sedulously  performed  all  those  acts, 
which  it  would  be  an  abomination  for  a  Christian  to  perform.  I  will  not  deny, 
that  here  is  the  strongest  evidence  that  Philip  was  not  such  a  Christian  as  he 
ought  to  have  been,  if  indeed  he  was  a  Christian,  at  the  time  when  he  celebrated 
these  games,  of  which  there  is  doubt  and  uncertainty.  Yet  all  these  unbecom- 
ing acts  might  be  done  by  a  prince,  who  fully  believed  the  truth  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  but  was  eager  to  give  stability  to  his  government,  solicitous  to 
please  the  Roman  people,  studious  to  conceal  his  real  opinions  respecting  religion, 
and  willing  to  give  the  name  of  prudence  to  this  impious  dissimulation.  Men 
of  such  a  character  think  many  things  to  be  allowable,  which  others,  very 
justly,  regard  as  criminal.  And  w^ho  does  not  know,  that  the  Christian  emperor 
Honorius^  permitted  the  secular  games  to  be  celebrated  at  Rome,  in  the  fourth 
century,  with  the  omission  of  some  of  the  most  impious  of  the  ceremonies? 

The  fourth  argument  adduced  by  the  learned,  to  disprove  the  Christianity 
of  Philip,  is  derived  from  his  coins,  on  which  are  found  images  of  the  gods, 
and  other  indications  of  the  grossest  superstition.  This  argument  has  already 
been  impugned,  by  the  remarks  before  made.  And,  not  to  repeat  what  has 
long  since  been  urged  by  others,  that  we  find  not  a  few  marks  of  the  ancient  su- 
perstition on  coins  of  the  acknowledged  Christian  emperors ;  who  can  think  it 
strange,  that  an  emperor,  solicitous  to  keep  the  people  ignorant  of  his  secret 
conversion  to  Christianity,  should  have  suffered  his  coins  to  be  struck  in  the 
ancient  form  of  the  state?  Even  if  Philip  had  been  truly  pious,  there  would 
have  been  a  very  plausible  excuse  for  his  conduct;  and  the  more  so,  in  propor- 
tion to  the  certainty  that  conclusive  evidence  of  a  prince's  religious  creed,  can- 
not always  be  deduced  from  his  coins.  It  is  also  to  be  remembered,  that  many  of 
these  coins  were  not  struck  by  his  order,  but  by  the  colonies  and  free  towns, 
in  honor  to  him. 

Upon  a  deliberate  and  candid  comparison  of  the  arguments  on  both  sides 
of  the  question,  the  religion  of  Philip  appears  to  me  to  be  one  of  those  sub- 
jects, on  which  a  controversy  may  be  so  maintained,  that  the  victory  shall  ever 
remain  dubious.  All  parties,  however,  must  acknowledge  the  fact,  that  under 
him,  the  Christians  enjoyed  peace  and  prosperity,  and  that  he  gave  many  proofs 
of  his  marked  kindness  to  them.  And  yet,  just  before  his  death,  (as  we  learn 
from  Eusebius,  or  rather,  from  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  as  quoted  by  Eusehius, 
Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vi.  c.  41.  et  L.  vii.  c.  22.)  there  was  a  serious  insurrection  of 
the  infuriated  populace  of  Alexandria  against  the  Christians.  Such  assaults 
were  experienced  under  the  mildest  and  best  emperors. 

[p.  477.]  §  XL  The  Persecution  under  Decius,  Philip,  after 
reigning  five  years,  was  slain  in  the  3^ear  249,  and  was  succeeded 
by  Decius  Trajanus,  a  prince,  in  many  respects  commendable,  but 
superstitious,    and   immoderately  attached  to  the  old  Eomish 


Tlie  Decian  Persecution.  07 

religion.  lie,  in  tlic  very  beginning  of  his  reign,  cither  from  fear 
of  the  Christians,  whom  he  knew  to  cherish  the  memory  of 
Phihp,  or  from  the  promptings  of  superstition, (')  issued  tcrriljle 
edicts  against  the  Christians,  commanding  the  governors  and 
magistrates,  on  pain  of  incurring  themselves  the  severest  animad- 
versions, to  either  wholly  exterminate  the  Christians,  or  recover 
them  to  the  service  of  the  gods  by  tortures  and  the  rack.  From 
what  is  handed  down  to  us  respecting  this  persecution,  it  appears 
that  it  was  conducted  differently  by  those  intrusted  with  its  exe- 
cution; some  proceeding  more  violently,  and  some  more  gently; 
and  this  seems  to  prove,  that  the  emperor,  only  in  general, 
ordered  the  Christian  Avorship  to  be  suppressed,  and  the  Chris- 
tians forced  to  return  to  idolatry ;  but  left  the  mode  of  proceed- 
ing, and  the  kinds  and  degree  of  punishment,  to  the  discretion  of 
the  governors. (")  Yery  many  lost  their  lives  during  this  perse- 
cution, in  all  parts  of  the  Roman  empire,  and  among  them  the 
distinguished  bishops  of  the  larger  cities,  as  Fabian  of  Rome, 
Bahylas  of  Antioch,  Alexander  of  Jerusalem,  and  many  others. 
But,  to  the  extreme  grief  of  their  pastors,  vast  numbers  of  Chris- 
tians, preferring  the  enjoyments  of  this  life  more  than  religion, 
procured  for  themselves  safety,  by  sacrifices  or  incense  presented 
to  idol  gods,  or  by  the  purchase  of  certificates  that  they  were 
idolaters.  And  hence  arose  the  reproachful  titles  of  Sacrificati^ 
Thurificati^  and  Lihellatici,  denoting  those  guilty  of  these  several 
forms  of  perfidy  towards  Christ. (^) 

(1)  Eusehius  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vi.  c.  39.  p.  234.)  says,  that  Decius  apsailed 
the  Christians,  {jre^d?  ^ixiTTTrcv  t^^-ovg  hinc/,)  fro?n  hafred  fo  Philip :  but  Gregory 
of  Nyssa,  (in  Vita  Greg.  Thaumaturgi,  0pp.  toin.  iii.  p.  567.  568.)  says,  that  his 
attachment  to  the  religion  of  his  country,  which  was  everywhere  shorn  of  its 
dignity  and  respectability  by  Christianity,  and  the  vast  numbers  adhering  to  it, 
alone  induced  this  emperor  to  enter  on  a  persecution  of  the  Christians.  These 
motives  are  not  so  incongruous,  but  that  they  might  both  coexist.  Perhaps, 
however,  it  will  not  be  rash  to  suppose,  that  the  same  motive  influenced  Decius 
as  had  before  influenced  Maximin;  nameljs  a  fear  lest  the  Christians  [p.  478.] 
should  seek  to  avenge  the  death  of  Philip,  who  had  greatly  patronised  them, 
and  by  raising  insurrections,  endanger  the  new  administration.  I  am  the  more 
inclined  to  favor  this  conjecture,  because  the  violence  of  this  persecution  very 
quickly  abated.  For  we  learn  from  Cyprian,  (Epist.  36.  37.  40.)  that  scarcely 
a  year  elapsed,  before  tranquillity  was,  in  a  great  measure,  again  restored  to  the 
church.  The  emperor  finding  his  power  well  established,  and  perceiving  that 
the  Christians  made  no  disloyal  attempts  against  him,  silently  abrogated  the 


28  Century  Ill.—Sectlon  11. 

edict,  which  his  fears  had  dictated.     Ilia  impassioned  cruelty  would  have  been 
more  permanent  and  abiding,  if  it  had  orio-jnatcd  from  hia  superstition. 

(2)  The  tenor  of  Decius'  edicts  ag-ainst  tlie  Christians,  can  be  learned  only 
from  some  passages  in  the  early  writers  who  advert  to  them,  and  from  the  pro- 
ceeding of  the  masgistrates  who  executed  them  ;  for  the  edicts  themselves  are 
lost.  Bern.  Medonius,  indeed,  published  at  Toulouse  in  1 664, 4to.  what  he  termed, 
Deed  Aiigusti  EdicUim  contra  Christianas,  taken  professedly  from  an  ancient 
manuscript  book.  But  Tillemont  has  shown,  (Memoires  pour  servir  a  I'Hist.  de 
I'Eglise,  tom.  iii.  P.  ii.  p.  400.)  that  the  document  contains  many  things,  which 
make  its  genuineness  doubtful,  although  it  contains  much  that  agrees  very  well 
with  the  statements  of  the  ancient  writers.  If  I  can  judge,  this  edict  was  copied 
from  the  Acta  of  some  Saint,  and  enlarged  in  some  respects,  and  corrected  in 
others,  by  the  publisher,  to  make  it  agree  better  with  the  statements  of  the  an- 
cients. And,  undoubtedly,  Medonius  would  have  told  us,  to  what  book  he  was 
indebted  for  so  great  a  treasure,  if  he  himself  had  ventured  to  rely  on  its 
authority. — It  is  beyond  all  dispute,  that  this  edict  of  Decius  was  more  cruel  and 
unjust  than  all  that  preceded  it,  and  particularly,  than  the  rescript  of  Trajan. 
Diofujsius  of  Alexandria,  (apud  Euseh.  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vi.  c.  41.  p.  238.)  pro- 
nounces it  (ifuj2ipw'rctTCY)  liorrihle  or  terrible :  and  he  says,  it  was  such,  ut  ipsi 
etiam  electi,  si  fieri  posset,  scandalum  paterentur ;  and  he  adds,  that  all  Christians, 
on  hearing  of  it,  were  exceedingly  terrified.  It  must,  therefore,  have  threatened 
evils  before  unheard  of,  and  have  prescribed  a  new  method  of  assault  on  Chris- 
tians, more  formidable  than  any  preceding  it.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  (in  Vita 
Gregorii  Thaumat.  0pp.  tom.  iii.  p.  568.)  states — 1.  "That  the  emperor  in  his 
edict,  commanded  the  governors  and  magistrates  to  bring  back  the  Christians  to 
the  worship  of  the  gods,  by  every  species  of  punishment  and  terror." — 2.  That 
he  threatened  the  governors  and  magistrates  with  severe  and  signal  penalties,  if 
they  were  remiss  and  negligent  in  the  execution  of  this  his  mandate. — 3.  Hence, 
all  the  governors,  in  obedience  to  the  mandate,  neglecting  all  other  business, 
immediately  commenced  torturing  the  Christians;  and  expounding  to  them  the 
edict,  they  signified  to  them,  that  such  of  them  as  refused  to  renounce  Chris- 
tianity, would  be  subjected  to  every  species  of  punishment,  and  even  to  death^ 
[p.  479.]  for  such  refusal.— 4.  That  various  kinds  of  torture,  before  unheard 
of,  were  invented ;  and  the  terrible  instruments  for  lacerating  and  torturing 
their  bodies,  were  exposed  in  public  for  all  to  behold.— 5.  That  all  this  pro- 
duced amazing  terror,  and  universal  commotion. — What  we  learn  from  other 
writers,  Origen  for  instance,  respecting  the  tenor  and  import  of  this  horrid  law, 
only  confirm  these  statements  in  general,  without  adding  any  further  light  con- 
cerning them.  Undoubtedly,  the  edict  embraced  all  sorts  of  Christians,  or 
those  of  every  order,  age,  and  sex  ;  for  this  appears  from  the  examples  of 
those  who  suffered  at  Alexandria,  as  narrated  by  Dionysiiis  of  Alexandria, 
(apud  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vi.  c.  41.  &c.)  There  is,  however,  a  noticeable  pas- 
sage in  Cyprian,  (Ep.  62.  ad  Antonianum,  p.  69.  ed.  Baluz.)  from  which  we 
learn,  that  Decius,  (as  Maximin  before  him  had  done,)  wished  to  have  the 
Christian  priests  and  bishops  made  the  principal  subjects  of  the  persecution ; 
and  therefore,  when  Fabian,  the  Romish  bishop,  had  been  slain,  he  prevented 


The  Dccian  Persecution.  09 

tlie  election  of  nnot'ncr  bishop  to  fill  his  plucc.  Ci/prlan  aaya  of  Cornelius, 
the  successor  of  Fnbian :  Sedit  iutrepidus  Ronuc  iu  sacerdotali  cathedra  eo 
tempore,  cum  tyrannus  infesius  sacerdulibus  Dei  fanda  atque  Infanda  comniina- 
retur,  cum  multo  patientius  et  tolerabilius  audiret  levari  adversus  so  lemulum 
principem,  quam  constitui  Roma3  Dei  sacerdotem.  If  we  consider  "the  state- 
ments of  Dionysius,  (in  the  above-named  passage  of  Ew^ebius,)  those  of 
Cyprian,  (in  his  tract  de  Lapsis,  and  in  various  of  his  Epii^tles,)  and  those  of 
some  others,  respecting  the  zeal  of  the  governors  and  magistrates  in  cxcculiiirr 
the  emperor's  edict,  there  will  appear  a  great  diversily  in  the  modes  of  proceed- 
ing and  punishing.  As  Cyprian  expressly  states,  (Epist.  7.  8.  15.  26.  37.  53.) 
Some  cast  the  Christians  who  boldly  confessed  Christ,  into  prison  :  and,  after 
some  delay,  such  as  utterly  refused  to  submit,  they  sent  into  exile.  Others 
subjected  the  Christians  who  confessed,  to  exquisite  tortures,  variously  modi- 
fied and  protracted  for  many  days,  and  then  remanded  them  almost  lifeless  to 
the  jails,  where  they  left  them  to  languish  out  life.  And  hence  at  the  death  of 
Decius,  many  Christians  were  found  lying  in  the  prisons,  and  were  set  at  liberty: 
of  which  number  the  celebrated  Origen  was  the  most  distinguished,  he  having 
suffered  exceedingly  under  Decius  ;  but  he  was  restored  to  his  liberty  after  the 
slaughter  of  Decius.  See  Eusebius,  ("Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vi.  e.  39.)  Others,  first 
tried  the  effects  of  imprisonment  in  overcoming  the  resolution  of  Christians ; 
and  then  tried  the  eflicacy  of  tortures;  and,  these  proving  insufficient,  they  sen- 
tenced them  to  a  capital  punishment ;  but  not  all  in  the  same  form.  The  more 
cruel  doomed  them  to  the  flames,  the  more  lenient  ordered  them  to  be  de- 
capitated; and  thus,  some  in  one  way,  and  others  in  another,  they  inflicted 
death  on  those  they  accounted  pernicious  and  guilty  citizens.  Yet  amid  this 
variety  in  the  mode  of  proceeding,  there  was  still  one  constant  aim.  For  we 
see,  that  they  all  tried,  in  various  ways,  to  induce  the  Christians  to  renounce 
the  profession  of  Christianity ;  they  all  proceeded  tardily  and  reluc-  [p.  480.] 
tantly  to  the  punishing  with  death ;  and,  lastly,  they  all  pursued  a  more  severe 
and  rigorous  course  with  the  ministers,  and  especially  with  the  bishops,  than 
with  others,  and  put  them  to  death  with  less  delay.  What  the  mode  of  pro- 
ceeding was  in  Africa,  may  be  learned,  in  some  measure,  from  the  tract  of 
Cyprian  de  Lapsis,  (in  his  opp.  p.  182.)  In  the  first  place,  the  accused  or  sus- 
pected were  allowed  by  the  judge  a  certain  number  of  days,  during  which  they 
might  consider  and  make  up  their  minds,  whether  to  profess  Christ,  or  to  deny 
him.  Explorandcc  Jidei  prcc.finiehantur  dies.  During  this  period  they  remained 
at  home  and  free ;  and,  as  appears  in  the  sequel,  no  one  opposed  their  seeking 
safety  by  absconding.  This  was  sufficiently  humane.  In  Egypt,  as  we  learn 
from  an  epistle  of  Dionysius,  (apud  Euscb.  ubi  sup.)  immediately  after  accusa- 
tion, confession  was  extorted ;  confeseion  was  followed  by  imprisonment,  im- 
prisonment by  torture,  and  torture  by  capital  punishment ;  and  very  often  all 
these  followed  in  rapid  succession.  Many  of  the  Christians  did  not  hesitate  to 
avail  themselves  of  the  liberty  granted  them  by  the  indulgence  of  the  gover- 
nors, to  take  time  for  deliberation.  But  Cyprian  was  displeased  with  it,  and 
enjoined  upon  his  flock  to  decline  the  favor:  Sed  qui  vSa3Culo  renuntiasse  mcmi- 
nit,  nullum  sajculi  diem  novit ;  nee  tempora  terrena  jam  computat,  qui  ictcrnita- 


30  Century  III— Section  11. 

teui  de  Deo  sperat.  Nemo,  fratres  dilectissimi,  nemo  hanc  gloriam  mutiJet, 
nemo  ineorruptam  atantium  iirmitatem  maligna  obtreetatione  debilitet.  From 
the  coiu'luding  words  of  this  exhortation,  it  would  appear,  that  the  more  coura- 
geous among  the  African  Christians  would  not  avail  themselves  of  the  privi- 
lege offered  by  the  governors,  and  were  blamed  for  it  by  some,  who,  undoubt- 
edly, accused  them  of  imprudence.  After  the  time  for  deliberation  had  elapeed, 
those  who  remained  silent,  and  would  neither  profess  Christ  nor  deny  him, 
were  held  by  the  judge  to  be  confessed  Christians  :  Cum  dies  negantibus  pra3. 
stitutus  .excessit,  quisquis  professus  intra  diem  non  est,  Christianum  se  esse 
confessus  est.  Therefore,  such  of  them  as  had  not  fled  away,  and  could  be 
found,  were  apprehended  and  thrown  into  prison.  Bui  many  fled,  before  the 
time  expired ;  and  these  were  publicly  proscribed,  and  their  goods  confiscated. 
Says  Cyprian :  Primus  victoria}  titulus,  gentilium  manibus  apprehensum  Domi- 
num  confiteri.  Secundus  ad  gloriam  gradus  est,  cauta  secessione  subtractum 
Domino  reservari.  Ilia  publica,  hasc  privata  confessio  est. — Hie  fortasse  dilatua 
est,  qui  patrimonio  derelicto,  idcirco  secessit,  quia  non  erat  negaturus.  Cyprian 
himself  fled,  and  suffered  the  penalty  of  flight,  the  loss  of  his  property.  Those 
whose  constancy  could  not  be  overcome  by  imprisonment,  were  sometimes 
banished,  with  no  additional  punishment;  sometimes  they  were  put  to  the 
rack ;  and  frequently,  when  nothing  would  induce  them  to  renounce  Christ, 
they  were  subjected  to  capital  punishment. 

To  one  who  attentively  considers  what  has  now  been  stated,  it  will  be  evi- 
dent, that  the  persecution  of  the  Christians  by  the  mandate  of  Decius  differed 
[p.  481.]  from  all  the  former  persecutions ;  and  that  the  mode  of  proceeding  in  it, 
was  not  according  to  the  first  rescript  of  Trajan,  nor  according  to  the  edicts  of 
the  succeeding  emperors.  The  governors  now  possessed  the  amplest  powers  for 
inquisition,  whereas  before  they  had  to  wait  for  an  accuser  to  appear;  any  one 
so  disposed  might  act  the  accuser,  without  regard  to  legal  forms;  nor  was  there 
any  danger  attending  accusations:  public  accusations  of  the  people,  which  the 
former  imperatorial  laws  forbid,  were  now  admitted;  as  appears  from  the  exam- 
ple of  Cyprian;  those  who  professed  adherence  to  Christ,  and  refused  to  re- 
nounce their  faith,  were  not  ordered  at  once  to  execution,  as  the  law  of  Trojan 
directed,  but  were  exposed  to  severe  tortures ;  neither  were  all  who  withstood 
the  force  of  torture,  put  to  death ;  but  many  were  either  kept  in  perpetual  im- 
prisonment, or  were  sent  into  exile.  It  is  easy,  therefore,  to  conjecture  what 
the  edict  of  Decius,  of  the  atrocity  and  cruelty  of  which  the  Christians  so  much 
complained,  prescribed.  The  emperor  did  not  order  the  Christians  to  be  slaugh- 
tered :  he  did  not  absolutely  command,  that  even  those  who  could  not  be  sub- 
dued by  sufferings  and  torture,  should  be  put  to  death :  for,  if  he  had  commanded 
the  capital  punishment  of  all,  whom  torture  and  the  rack  could  not  bring  to 
renounce  Christ,  the  governors  would  not  have  dared  to  discharge  many  from 
the  prisons  alive ;  and  to  shut  up  others  who  had  been  tortured,  in  places  of  con- 
finement ;  and  to  grant  to  others  a  season  for  consideration,  after  they  had  with 
great  constancy  professed  themselves  Christians;  as  was  sometimes  done  in 
Egypt,  according  to  Dionysius  as  quoted  by  Eusebius.  The  emperor,  therefore, 
must  have  charged  the  magistrates  only,  in  general,  to  destroy  the  Christian 


The  Dccian  Persecution.  31 

religion  ;  to  carofiilly  search  out  all  the  professors  of  it,  and  to  punish  those  who 
refused  to  worship  the  gods  with  all  sorts  of  torture  and  sulVerin«,rs,  until  thoy 
would  return  to  the  religion  of  their  fathers.  Perhaps,  however,  he  commanded 
that  bishops  and  priests,  on  refusing  compliance,  should  be  at  once  put  to  death* 
in  order  to  strike  terror  into  others.  He  did  not  prescribe  the  mode  of  proceed- 
ing against  those  who,  on  being  admonished,  refused  to  renounce  Christ,  but 
left  it  to  the  judgment  and  discretion  of  the  governors :  and  hence  that  diversity 
in  the  proceedings  of  the  magistrates  with  Christians,  some  proceeding  more 
mildly,  and  others  more  harshly.  That  many  of  the  governors  consigned  to  the 
sword  or  the  flames,  a  large  part  of  those  whom  the  rack  and  the  prison  could 
not  subdue,  can  by  no  means  prove,  that  Decius  commanded  the  execution  of 
all  the  persevering.  For  the  governors  had  power,  without  any  mandate  from 
the  emperor,  to  put  those  to  death,  whom  neither  force  nor  fear,  neither  argu- 
ments nor  persuasives,  could  induce  to  worship  the  gods;  by  virtue,  not  only  of 
the  law  of  Trajan,  which  threatened  death  to  such  as  would  not  forsake  Christ, 
but  also  by  the  common  law  of  the  empire,  which  declared  all  who  should  not 
obey  the  imperatorial  edicts  unworthy  to  live. — As  to  the  rewards  and  honors 
which,  I  find  some  moderns  say,  were  proffered  to  those  who  would  apostatise 
from  Christ,  I  do  not  discover  a  notice  of  them  in  any  ancient  writer.  Perhaps 
some  of  the  governors  attempted  to  entice  here  and  there  an  individual,  [p.  482.] 
to  whom  they  were  favorably  inclined,  by  this  allurement;  but  that  any  empe- 
ror should  have  sought  to  secure  the  obedience  of  his  subjects,  by  promises, 
persons  of  any  acquaintance  with  Roman  affairs  will  not  easily  believe. 

(3)  All  tlje  persecutions  sustained  by  the  Christians  in  preceding  times,  had 
not  produced  so  many  deserters  and  apostates  from  divine  truth,  as  this  single 
short  one  under  Decius.     Persons  of  all  ranks,  and,  what  is  especially  remark- 
able, even  bishops  and  priests,  scarcely  waited  to  be  informed  of  the  tyrant's 
threats,  before  they  hastened  to  the  tribunals  of  the  governors  and  magistrates, 
and  professed  themselves  ready  to  worship  the  gods  and  to  disclaim  Christ. 
This  defection  or  fall  of  so  many  Christians,  was  deeply  deplored  by  Cyprian, 
among  others,  in  his  eloquent  treatise  de  Lapsis.     This  distinguished  writer 
attributes  the   evil  to  the  indulgent,  luxurious,  and  degenerate  course  of  life 
produced  in  Christians  by  the  long  continued  peace,  particularly  under  Alex- 
ander Severus  and  the  two  Philips;  for  only  a  very  few,  in  certain  provinces, 
experienced  the  hostility  of  Maximin.     Freed  from  solicitude  and  caution,  the 
Christians  had  relaxed  much  of  their  contempt  of  this  life  and  its  concerns,  and 
had  in  many  places  contracted  vicious  habits.     This  must  be  believed,  on  the 
authority  of  a  man  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  state  of  Christians  in  his  own 
times.     And  yet,  I  apprehend,  there  will  be  no  mistake  in  assigning  an  addition- 
al cause,  and  supposing  that  the  peculiar  nature  and  form  of  the  persecution 
instituted  by  Decius,  induced  more  persons  to  violate  their  plighted  faith  to 
Christ,  than  ever  before.     Trajan  decreed  death  to  every  avowed  Christian 
who  refused  to  forsake  Christ,  making  no  mention  of  tortures  and  racks :  and 
much  the  same  were  the  edicts  of  the  other  persecutors  of  the  Christians :  but 
Decius  threatened, — not  a  capital  punishment,  but  long  and  painful  suflerings, 
to  the  despisers  of  the   godsj   and  a  lingering,  protracted  death,  amid  varied 


32  Centurij  Ill—Section  11. 

successive  tortures,  to  the  more  resolute  professors  of  Christianity.  And  his 
governors  executed  iiis  tlireats  witii  great  exactitude:  they  ordered  no  one  to 
be  put  to  death,  unless  he  was  first  subjected  to  numerous  tortures,  and  ex- 
hausted and  almost  dead  in  consequence  of  his  pains  and  horrid  sufferings;  and 
many  also  were  tortured,  until  they  actually  expired.  Some  of  the  governors, 
in  order  to  strike  greater  terror  into  Christians,  ingeniously  contrived  new 
modes  of  torture,  :ind  exposed  the  instruments  of  the  executioners,  publicly, 
before  the  eyes  of  all.  This  was  a  far  more  efhcient  way  to  destroy  courage, 
and  inspire  dismay,  than  the  punishments  of  the  preceding  times.  Men  who 
are  not  afraid  to  die,  will  look  with  horror  on  long  continued  writhing  pains, 
and  lacerations  of  the  body ;  and  this  horror  will  be  increased  by  seeing  many 
examples  of  sucii  extreme  cruelty  and  inhumanity. 

Among  the  lapsed  during  this  bloody  persecution,  in  addition  to  the  Thuri- 
ficali  and  Sarificati,  that  i<,  those  who  had  presented  incense  before  the  images 
of  the  gods,  or  placed  victims  and  sacrifices  on  their  altars,  we  find  notice  of  a 
new  class  of  which  there  is  no  mention  before  this  period,  namely,  the  Libella- 
tici.     Who  these  were,  the  learned  are  not  agreed.     In  regard  to  this  question, 
[p.  483.]  the  following  particulars  are  true  beyond  all  doubt; — First,  that  the 
term  Libellaiicus  was  derived  from  Qibellus)  the  written  'paper,  which  those 
called  Libellatici  either  presented  to  the  judge,  or  received  from  him  ; — Secondly, 
that  these  persons  had  redeemed  their  lives,  and  procured  safety  from  the 
emperor's  edict,  by  means  of  money.     And  this,  as  we  have  before  seen,  was 
neither  a  new  thing,  nor  regarded  as  base  and  improper.     By  the  disciples  of 
Montanus,  indeed,  it  was  considered  as  impious  to  purchase  life  and  safety  with 
money ;  but  the  rest  of  the  Christians  condemned  this  Montanist  opinion : — 
and  thirdly,  this  is  certain,  that  the  Libellatici  did  not  renounce  Christ,  either  in 
words  or  deeds ;  that  is,  they  neither  payed  worship  and  honor  to  the  gods,  nor 
concealed  or  dissembled  their  own  religion.    And  yet  they  committed  an  act 
bearing  some  affinity  with  this  crime,  and  one  which,  when  carefully  considered, 
might  seem  to  be  a  tacit  proof  of  a  denial  of  Christ. — Lastly,  that  the  Libellatici 
were  the  least  criminal,  or  if  you  please,  the  best  among  the  lapsed,  and,  with 
little  trouble,  obtained   reconciliation  with  the  church.     The  two  following 
questions,  however,  have  been  especially  debated :    Whether  the  Libellatici 
were  so  denominated,  from  the  (libelli)  papers  they^^are  in,  or  from  such  as  tiiey 
received  ?  and,  What  was  the  tenor  or  contents  of  these  libelli,  from  which  they 
derived  their  name  ?     This  discussion  is  founded  wholly  on  the  interpretation 
of  some  rather  obscure  passages  in  Cyprian:  for  lie  only  makes  distinct  mention 
of  the  Libellatici ;  notwithstanding  there  is  good  evidence,  that  such  persona 
were  found  in  other  countries  than  Africa;  for  avarice  reigns  every  where,  and 
life  is  every  where  more  valued  than  money.     To  recite  the  various  opinions 
and  conjectures  of  the  learned,  is  not  in  accordance  with  my  plans,  nor  would 
it  be  of  much  use.     It  will  be  more  pleasant,  and  more  profitable,  to  cite  the 
passages  of  Cyprian,  and  give  their  true  interpretation.     In  the  first  place,  it  is 
clear  that  those  learned  men  have  not  duly  considered  the  subject,  who  sup- 
pose the  Libellatici  were  thus  named  on  account  of  their  (libelli)  petitions 
presented  to  the  governor  or  magistrate,  requesting  the  judge,  on  the  payment  of 


The   Lapsed.  33 

a  certain  sura  of  money,  to  spare  the  petitioner,  and  not  demand  of  iiim  a  pub- 
lic renunciation  of  his  religion.     For,  not  to  mention  that  it  cannot  be  shown 
tliat  such  petitions  to  judges  were  allowed  of,  and  that  on  the  contrary,  it 
appears  from  Cyprian,  (as  we  shall  soon  see,)  that  the  Libellatici  appeared  per- 
sonally, or  by  their  agents,  before  the  judge,  and  implored  his  clemency,  not  in 
writing,  but  by  oral  statements  only; — I  say,  not  to  insist  on  this,  although  it 
is  of  great  weight  in  this  controversy, — the  Christians,  by  presenting  such  pe- 
titions, would  have  been  guilty  of  no  offence.     For,  as  already  sliown,  the  laws 
of  the  church  allowed  Christians  to  petition  the  judge,  either  orally,  or  in 
writing,  to  spare  them,  and  to  offer  him  money  as  an  inducement.     A  LibellaLi- 
cus,  therefore,  was  a  Christian   who    obtained  from  the  magistrate,  by  some 
pecuniary  consideration,  a  (libellus  securitaLis)  cerlijicate  of  security,  in  which  it 
was  stated,  that  he  had  complied  with  the  emperor's  edict,  that  is,  had  sacrificed 
to  the  gods,  although  in  fact  he  had  done  no  such  thing,  and  had  told   tlie 
judge  that  his  religion  utterly  forbid  his  doing  it.    On  account  of  this  certificate, 
which  the   Christian  produced  if  occasion  required  it,  he  was  publicly  by  the 
citizens  regarded  as  a  deserter  from  his  religion,  while  in  reality  he  [p.  484.] 
was  no  deserter  of  it.     The  judge  practised  deception,  by  giving  the  certificate; 
and  the  Christian  practised  deception  by  it,  and  suffered  himself  to  be  mistaken 
for  an  apostate.     And  herein  properly  consisted  the  offence  of  the  Libellatici; 
for  this  tacit  profession  of  perfidy,  although  it  was  mere  simulation,  seemed  to 
differ  but  little  from  a  real  and  open  profession  of  it.     This  view  of  the  subject 
is,  for  the  most  part,  admitted  by  PrudenLius  Maran,  in  his  life  of  Cyprian, 
Q  vi.  p.  liv.  &c.)  prefixed  to  the  Baluzian  edition  of  Cyprian's  Works.     Yet  he 
rejects  it  in  part;   for  he  denies,  that  these  certificates  declared  the  holders  of 
them  to  have  complied  with  the  emperor's  edict:  this,  he  thinks,  would  have 
been  too  gross  a  falsehood.    He  therefore  supposes,  that  the  judges  entered 
upon  the  public  records,  that  the  persons  holding  certificates  had  sacrificed  and 
renounced  Christ,  but  they  omitted  this  in  the  certificates.     This  worthy  monk 
was  not  destitute  of  erudition,  but  he  had  little  acquaintance  with  human  affairs; 
and  aiming  to  bring  forth  something  new,  he  brought  it  forth;  but  under  un- 
favorable auspices.     Good  sense  forsook  him.     As  to  the  (Ada)  public  records, 
in  which  he  thinks  it  was  written,  that  the  holders  of  certificates  or  the  Libel- 
latici, had  offered  sacrifices,  I  shall  say  nothing.     He  took  this  from  a  passage 
in  Cyprian,  misunderstood ;  so  that  the  fact  of  such  a  record,  is  not  proved ; 
although  it  is  not  contrary  to  all  probability.     But  when  he  maintains,  that 
what  was  written  in  the  book  of  Records,  was  not  inserted  in  the  certificates  of 
safety,  he  forgets  the  demands  of  Decius'  edict,  which  required  the  governors  to 
extirpate  the  Christian  religion,  and  to  compel  all  Christians  to  oflier  sacrifices 
and  worship  the  gods.    The  governors,  therefore,  could  not,  unless  they  were 
willing  to  incur  the  penalties,  with  which,  as  before  shown,  the  emperor's  edict 
threatened  them,  grant  safety,  and  certificates  thereof,  to  any  others  besides 
those  who  had  complied  with  the  emperor's  edict.     And  therefore,  beyond  con- 
troversy, it  must  have  been  stated  in  the  certificate,  that  the  liolder  of  it  had 
done  what  the  emperor  required.     Such  a  public  testimonial  was  supposed  to 
be  written  in  good  faith,  although  written  in  bad  or  deceptive  faith ;  and  there- 
VOL.  u.  4 


34  Century  III.-^ Section  11. 

fore  it  exempted  those  who  produced  it,  from  all  fear  and  danger.  It  may  ber 
added,  moreover,  that  Cijprian,  (as  we  shall  presently  soe,)  calls  those  certifi- 
cates, not  only  vnpious,  but  also  cerlificales  of  idolalnj.  (Epist.  68.  p.  119.): 
Basilides  et  Martialis  nefando  idololatriae  libello  contaminati  sunt.  These  cer- 
tificates could  not  have  merited  such  epithets,  if  they  had  simply  assured  certain 
Christians  of  their  safety,  making  no  mention  of  their  having  paid  honour  ta 
the  gods.  What,  I  would  ask,  is  a  ceriificate  of  idolatry,  (lihellus  idololatriae,) 
but  a  certificate  declaring  the  person  an  idolater,  or  asserting  that  he  has  wor- 
shipped the  gods? — Lastly :  if  the  fictitious  crime  of  the  Christian  Libellatici  had 
been  entered  on  the  records  of  the  court,  but  not  mentioned  in  the  certificates, 
the  holders  of  the  certificates  could  not  have  made  that  use  of  them,  which  they 
especially  desired  to  do,  before  other  judges;  because  these  judges  might  de- 
mand of  them,  to  commit  in  their  presence  the  act,  of  which  there  was  no 
mention  made  in  the  certificate. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  principal  passages  in  Cyprian,  relative  to  the  LibeU 
[p.  485.]  latici,  and  see  w^hether  they  accord  with  what  has  been  stated.  Tho 
most  noted  of  all  the  passages  is  in  his  Epistle  to  Antonianus  (Epist.  52.  p. 
70.)  :  Cum  ergo  inter  ipsos,  qui  sacrificaverunt,  multa  sit  diversitas,  qua)  incle- 
mentia  est  et  quam  acerba  duritia,  Libellaticos  cum  iis,  qui  sacrificaverunt,  jun- 
gere,  quando  is,  cui  libellus  acceptus  est,  dicat :  Ego  prius  legeram  et  episcopo 
traetante  cognoveram  non  sacrificandum  idolia,  nee  simulacra  servum  Dei  ado- 
rare  debere,  et  ideirco  ne  hoc  facerem,  quod  non  licebat,  cum  occasio  libelli 
fuissel  oblata,  quern  nee  ipsum  acciperem,  nisi  ostensa  fuissct  occasio,  ad  magis- 
tratum  vel  veni,  vel  alio  eunte  mandavi,  Christianura  me  esse,  sacrifieare  mihi 
non  liccre,  ad  aras  diaboli  me  venire  non  posse,  dare  me  ob  hoc  prajmium,  ne 
quod  non  licet  faciam.  Nunc  tamen  etiam  iste,  qui  libello  maculatus  est,  pos- 
tcaquam,  nobis  admonentibus,  didicit,  nee  hoc  se  facere  debuisse,  etsi  manus 
pura  sit,  et  os  ejus  feralis  cibi  nulla  contagia  polluerint,  conscientiam  tamen  ejus 
esse  pollutara  flet,  auditis  nobis,  et  lamentatur.  From  this  extract  the  following 
things  are  manifest : — 1.  The  Libellatici  had  paid  no  worship  to  the  gods,  they 
had  not  even  touched  meats  offered  to  the  gods,  and  consequently  they  were 
far  more  innocent  than  the  Sacrificati. — 2.  They  procured  certificates,  lest  pos- 
sibly, if  arraigned  before  the  tribunals,  they  might  commit  these  crimes  through 
dread  of  torture. — 3.  Not  at  their  own  solicitation,  but  at  the  suggestion  of 
others,  the  judges  asked  them  to  order  certificates  to  be  written  for  them  ;  or, 
as  Cyprian  expresses  it,  while  they  were  not  contemplating  such  a  thing,  an 
occasion  was  offered  them  for  petitioning  for  a  certificate.  That  is,  the  avaricious 
magistrates  perceiving  a  prosperous,  wealthy  person  among  the  Christians,  sig- 
nified to  him,  privately,  through  their  satellites  or  friends,  that  his  safety  might 
be  secured,  and  exemption  from  suffering  purchased,  with  a  moderate  sum  of 
money;  thus  proffering  him  the  clemency  of  the  judges.— 4.  The  Libellatici  did 
not  present  written  petitions  to  the  magistrate,  but  went  to  the  judge,  either 
personally  or  by  some  friend,  and  orally  made  known  their  wishes,  presenting, 
at  the  same  time,  the  price  of  the  favor  asked  for.  Cyprian  reports  the  lan- 
guage they  used.  This  method  of  proceeding  was  necessary  to  the  magistrate's 
safety.    If  they  had  allowed  written  petitions  to  be  presented  by  those  who 


The    Lapsed.  35 

wished  to  obtain  certificates  of  safety  without  sacrifK'ing,  the  very  petilions 
mi""lit  lead  to  the  easy  detection  of  the  fraud.  Tiiose  coiiveryant  with  tiie  pro- 
ceedings of  men,  well  know  that  such  transactions  being  derogatory  to  the  law, 
and  counteracting  the  designs  of  the  sovereign  power,  are  never  done  in  writing, 
but  ahvajs  orally.  This  leads  me  to  wonder  the  more  at  those  who  conceive, 
that  the  Libellatici  were  so  called  from  tlie  Qibelli)  written  •petitions  which  they 
presented. — 5.  Some  of  these  Libellatici  applied  personally  to  the  judges,  while 
others  signified  their  wishes  through  tlie  medium  of  friends.  For  some  sup- 
posed  they  would  be  less  criminal,  if  they  did  not  themselves  attempt  to  bribe 
the  judge,  but  employed  others  to  do  it.  Some,  again,  I  suspect,  were  afraid  to 
appear  personally,  lest  the  judges,  on  their  professing  themselves  Christians, 
should  at  once  seize  them,  and  cast  them  into  prison ;  and,  therefore,  they  cm- 
ployed  some  worshipper  of  idols,  who  had  nothing  to  fear,  to  present  [p.  48G.] 
the  request,  pay  the  money,  and  receive  the  certificate  in  their  name. — 6.  It  ia 
manifest  that  the  Libellatici  received  a  writing  from  the  judge  whom  they  had 
bribed ;  for  Cyprian  twice  mentions  the  (Hbellus  acceplus)  writing  or  certificate 
received.  And  this  writing  or  certificate  protected  them  against  all  prosecutions, 
or  attempts  to  compel  them  to  worship  the  gods. 

Another  passage,  in  an  Epistle  of  the  Roman  Clergy  to  Cyprian,  (inter  Cy- 
priani  Epistolas,  Ep.  31.  Opp.  p.  42.)  is  not  quite  so  lucid,  and  yet  sufficiently 
so  to  confirm  the  preceding  statements :  Superioribus  litteris  nostris  (a  letter 
not  now  extant.)  vobis  sententiam  nostram  dilucida  expositionc  protulimus,  et 
adversus  eos,  qui  seipsos  infideles  illicita  nefariorum  libellorum  professione  pro- 
diderant,  quasi  evasuri  irretientes  illos  diaboli  laqueos  viderentur,  quo  non 
minus  quani  si  ad  nefarias  aras  accessissent,  hoe  ipso  quod  ipsum  contestati 
fucrant,  tenerentur,  sed  etiain  adversus  illos,  qui  acta  fecissent,  licet  priesentes 
quum  fierent,  non  affuisscnt,  quum  prsesentiam  suam  utique  ut  sic  scriberentur 
mandando  fecissent.  Non  est  enim  immunis  a  scelere  qui  ut  fieret  imperavit: 
nee  est  alicnus  a  crimine,  cnjus  consensu,  licet  non  a  se  admissum  crimen,  ta- 
men  publice  legitur,  et  cum  totum  fidei  sacramentum  in  confessione  Christ! 
nominis  intelligatur  esse  digestum,  qui  fallaces  in  excusatione  prcestigias  qua3rit, 
negavit,  et  qui  vult  videri  propositis  adversus  Evangelium  vel  edictis  vcl  legibua 
satisfecisse,  hoc  ipso  jam  paruit  quod  videri  se  paruisse  voluit. — From  these 
words  of  the  Roman  clergy  we  may  learn: — 1.  That  the  Libellatici  were  ac- 
customed libellos  nefarias  profiler^  in  presence  of  the  judge ;  and  by  such 
professione  se  ipsos  infideles  prodere.  What  is  here  meant  by  libellum  profiterif 
the  writers  of  the  Epistle  presently  show ;  it  is,  io  direct  or  require  that  some- 
thing be  written.,  or  that  a  Hbellus  be  drawn  up.  This  will  be  perfectly  manifest, 
to  one  comparing  the  expression  with  what  follows  it.  Those  therefore  greatly 
err,  who  make  profiteri  libellum  here  to  be  equivalent  to  offerre  judici  libellum. 
It  is  rather,  to  profess  to  the  judge,  that  they  stand  ready  to  receive  a  libellum 
at  a  certain  price,  or  to  request  one  from  the  judge,  tendering  him  money 
2.  What  was  written  in  the  certificate  thus  asked  for,  is  clearly  indicated  in  tlie 
following  words:  ciijus  Consensu,  licet  non  a  se  admissum  crimen, publice  legitur. 
The  person  then  who  solicited  a  certificate,  consented,  that  a  crime,  which  he  had 
never  committed,  sliould  be  piiblicly  imputed  to  him.     The  crime  referred  to,  was, 


36  Century  III.— Section  11. 

undoubtedly,  that  of  sacrificing.  It  is  tlicrcfore  certain,  that  the  certificates 
stated  that  such  and  such  persons  had  sacrificed  to  the  gods.  And  tliis,  more- 
over, is  confirmed  by  the  following  words:  Videri  viilt  propositis  adversus 
Evatigelium  vet  ediclis  vel  legihus  salisfecisse ;  paruit,  quia  paruisse  videri 
voluit.  Consequently,  the  governor  testified  in  Ms  certificate  that  Caius  or 
Seius  had  complied  with  and  satisfied  the  emperor's  edict ;  and  he  who  {pro- 
fUebatur)  declared  his  willingness  to  receive  the  certificate,  consented  that  the 
judge  should  so  state  concerning  him,  although  the  stateaient  was  false.  The 
[p.  487.]  words  publice  legitur  may  lead  some  to  conjecture,  that  the  certificates 
thus  granted  were  posted  up  publicly  in  the  Praetorium,  so  that  all  might  read 
them.  And  perhaps  they  were  so ;  but  it  is  not  necessary  to  put  this  construc- 
tion on  the  words.  For  any  thing  may  be  said  {publice  legi)  to  be  publicly  read, 
which  is  frequently  read  in  public,  which  is  shown  and  must  be  shown,  to  all 
who  ask  to  see  it ;  and  therefore  is  liable  to  be  read  by  every  one.  Maran,  who 
thought  it  evident  from  this  expression,  that  the  fictitious  criminal  act  was  not 
stated  in  the  certificate,  but  only  recorded  on  the  court  records,  did  rot  recol- 
lect, that  these  court  records  w-ere  not  read  publicly,  nor  could  all  have  access 
to  read  them.  Moreover,  the  language  here  used  shows  most  conclusively,  that 
it  must  be  understood  of  written  papers  received  from  the  judge,  and  not  of 
papers  presented  to  him.  For  how  could  a  Libellaticus,  in  a  paper  of  his  own, 
confess  a  crime  which  he  had  not  committed?  How  could  he  aflirm  that  he  had 
complied  with  the  emperor's  edict? — 3.  Hence  it  is  clear  what  the  Roman 
priests  mean,  when  they  say  that  the  exhibitors  of  these  certificates  proclaimed 
themselves  unbelievers.  For  when  a  man  professes  before  a  judge,  that  he  is 
willing  to  have  a  crime  publicly  attributed  to  him,  which,  how^ever,  he  would 
shudder  to  commit,  he  betrays  his  infidelity ;  that  is,  he  makes  it  known,  that  he 
will  not  publicly  profess  Christ,  and  that  he  is  unconcerned,  if  the  public  should 
regard  him  as  an  apostate. — 4.  These  things  being  kept  in  sight,  it  w^ill  not  be 
difficult  to  apprehend  the  meaning  of  the  Roman  Clergy,  when  they  say :  Libel- 
laticos  irretientes  diaboli  laqueos  evaders  telle,  at  non  minus  teneri,  quam  si  ad 
nefarias  aras  accessissent,  quod  hoc  ipsum  contestati  fuerant.  The  Laquei  Diaboli, 
which  might  irretire,  or  lead  men  to  forsake  Christ,  were  imprisonment,  the 
Tack,  and  the  tortures  wherewith  the  governors,  by  command  of  Decius,  s'ought 
to  bring  Christians  to  a  renunciation  of  Christ.  And  the  Libellatici,  although 
they  had  not  gone  to  the  forbidden  altars,  nor  offered  sacrifice  to  the  gods,  yet 
were  equally  guilty,  in  the  view  of  the  Roman  priests,  because  they  had  attest- 
ed to  (hoc  ipsum)  this  very  thing,  namely,  their  going  to  the  altars  and  offering 
Baorifice.  They  had  not  indeed  themselves  attested  to  this ;  but,  with  their 
consent,  the  judge  had  attested  it;  and  he  who  approves  the  act  of  another,  by 
consenting  to  it,  is  justly  considered  as  a  cause  and  author  of  it;  and  one  who 
authorises  another  to  charge  him  publicly  with  a  crime,  in  a  sense  charges  it 
upon  himself. — 5.  What  we  learned  from  the  former  passage,  is  also  manifest 
from  this,  namely,  that  the  Libcllnticl  did  not  present  Qibellos)  written  requests 
to  the  judge,  but  either  went  to  him  themselves,  or  sent  their  authorised  agents 
to  solicit  from  him  a  (libellus)  uyritten  certificate.  Prudentius  Maran  fancies  that 
the  words  Acta  fecissent,  here  indicate  the  {Acta  Judicii)  Records  of  the  Court; 


The    Lapsed.  37 

a  most  unhappy  conceit :  as  if  truly,  entries  on  the  court  records  raitrht  bo 
made  by  the  petitioners  to  the  court ;  that  was  the  business  of  the  public  nota- 
ries.    In  this  place,  Ada  facere  is  the  same  with  Uhellum  prnfueri:  for   the 
Roman  clergy  are  here  speaking  of  those  (Acta)  acts,  which  were  unavoidable,  bv 
such  Christians  as  would  secure  their  safety  by  means  of  a  (libellus)  certificate. 
We  subjoin  a  third  passage  from  the  tract  of  Cyprian  (de  Lapsis,  [p.  488.1 
c.  27.  p.  190.)  :  Nee  sibi  quo  minus  agant  pocnitentiam    blandiantur,  qui  etsi 
nefandis  sacrificiis  manus  non   contaminaverunt,  Ubellis   tamen   conscientiara 
pollucrunt.     Et  ilia  professio  denegantis  contestatio  est  Christian!  quod  fucrat 
abnuentis.     The  learned  hesitate  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  this  passao-e; 
because  it  is  concise  and  rather  obscure ;  and  yet,  by  proper    attention,  we 
may  easily  discover  its  import.     The  Professio  denegantis  is,  the  Professio  Ubelli 
of  a  Christian,  who  denies  before  the  judge,  that  he  can  or  will  offer  sacrifice. 
This  will  appear,  if  we  compare  the  first  passage  above  cited  with  the  one  be- 
fore us.      This  Professio  Ubelli  is  the   Contestatio  or  testimony  of  a  Christian, 
abnuentis  id,  quodfuerat,  i.  e.  denying  that  he  is  any  longer  a  Ciiristian,  which 
he  before  was.     For,  he  who  permits  it  to  be  stated,  (in  libello)  in  the  certifi- 
cate, that  he  has  offered  sacrifice,  virtually  denies  that  he  is  a  Christian,  by 
allowing  the  title  and  glory  of  a  Christian  to  be  taken  from  him.  Fecisse  se  dixit 
(namely,  by  the  judge,  who  wrote  as  he  desired,)  quicquid  almafaciendo  commisit. 
Cumque  scriptum  sit;  non  potestis  duobus  Dominis  servire,  servivit  gaeculari 
Domino  qui  obtemperavit  ejus  cdicto  (i.  e.  the  person  who  consented  to  have  it 
written,  that  he  had  obeyed  the  Deeian  edict,)  magis  obaudivit  humano  imperio, 
quam  Deo.     Viderit  an  minore  vel  dedecore  vel  crimine  apud  homines  publica- 
verit,  quod  admisit.     Deum  tamen  Judicem  fugere  et  vitare  non  poterit.     To 
avoid  prolixity,  I  will  not  continue  the  explication  of  this  passage,  notwithstand- 
ing it  is  ill  understood  by  many ;  for  it  contributes  but  little  to  elucidate  the 
subject  under  consideration.  —Among  the  other  passages  in  Cyprian  relative  to 
the  Libellalici  and  their  certificates,  there  are  none  which  throw  additional  light 
on  the  subject,  or  add  weight  to  the  arguments  already  adduced,  except  a  pas- 
sage in  his  Epistle  to  Fortunatus,  (de  Exhortatione  Martyrii,  c.  11.  p.  271.) 
where  he  cites  the  example  of  Eleazur,  in  2  Maccab.  6.  to  rebuke  the  crime  of 
the  LibellaticL     He  says:  Ac  nequis  vel  Ubelli  vel  alicujus  rei  oblata  sibi  occa- 
sione  qua  fallat  amplectatur  decipientium  malum  nmnus,  nee  Eleazarus  tacen- 
dus  est,  qui  cum  sibi  a  ministris  regis  offerretur  facultas,  ut  accepta  carne  qua 
liceret  sibi  vesci  ad  circumveniendum  Regem  simularet  se  ilia  cdere,  quae  de 
sacrificiis  ingerebantur,  consentire   ad  banc  fallaciam  noluit,  dicens,  nee  atati 
suae,  nee  nobilitati  convenire,id  fingere,  quo  ceteri  scandalizerentur  et  in  errorem 
inducerentur,  existimantes  Eleazarum  ad  alienigenarum  morem  transiisse.  A  cur- 
sory reading  of  this  passage  will  show,  that  the  Libellatici  practised  an  imposi- 
tion upon  the  emperor,  and  feigned  obedience  to  him  ;  and  also,  that  they  were 
invited  to  do  this  by  others ;  for  Cyprian  says,  they  embraced  the  opportunity 
proffered  to  them.     It  is  likewise  evident  that  they  did  not  present  the  (llbcllinn) 
written  paper  to  the  judge,  but  received  it  from  him;  for  Cyprian  calls  these 
(libellos)  written  papers //m/wm  mnnvs ;  which  single  expression  is    nearly  a 
sufficient  confutation  of  the  false  opinions   and  conjectures  of  many.     For  a 


88  Century  IIL^Sectioii  12. 

[p.  489.]  munus  is  something  received  ;  and  a  inalum  munus  is,  undoubtedly, 
a  gift  that  is  injurious  to  the  receiver.  There  must,  therefore,  have  been  some- 
thing written  in  the  (libellus)  certificate,  which  might  bring  reproacli  and  crimi- 
naliiy  on  the  Libellaticus. 

This  whole  subject  might  liave  been  more  clear  and  easy  to  be  understood, 
if  the  edict  of  Decius  had  come  down  to  us.  For,  as  there  is  no  mention 
whatever  of  such  {libelU)  certificates,  by  any  writer  who  lived  anterior  to  the 
times  of  this  edict,  although  we  know  that,  before  that  period,  Christians  pur- 
chased to  themselves  safety  by  money  and  presents,  it  seems  that  this  w^hole 
matter  originated  from  the  severe  law  of  this  emperor.  He,  if  I  am  not  mis- 
taken, not  only  required  all  the  Christians  that  could  be  found,  to  be  seized, 
and  by  tortures  compelled  to  pay  homage  to  the  gods;  but  also,  lest  some 
might  evade  the  law,  and  falsely  pretend  to  have  sacrificed,  he  ordered  the 
iudges  to  give  a  libellum,  or  public  testimonial,  that  the  thing  had  been  actually 
done,  according  to  the  emperor's  requisition.  A  man,  therefore,  destitute  of  a 
libeUuSy  or  testimonial  from  the  judge,  was  liable  to  be  accused  of  disobeying 
the  law  and  being  a  rebel ;  but  the  man  who  could  produce  his  libellus,  was 
free  from  all  danger.  This  idea,  in  my  opinion,  throws  much  light  on  the 
hitherto  incomprehensible  cause  for  these  libelU.  To  all  Christians  who  would 
be  safe  from  molestation,  the  libellus  or  testimonial  of  the  judge,  that  he  had 
sacrificed,  was  indispensable.  Vast  numbers  procured  a  libellus  by  actually 
doing  what  the  emperor  required:  others,  too  conscientious  to  follow  their  ex- 
ample, and  not  knowing  what  to  do,  remained  trembling  at  theh-  homes.  And 
to  these  timid  and  hesitating  persons  the  money-loving  judges  caused  it  to  be 
secretly  intimated  by  their  retainers,  tliat  there  was  a  wny  to  obtain  a  libellus, 
without  sacrificing ;  that  the  judges  would  give  the  testimonies  required  by  the 
imperiLorial  edict,  to  persons  who  would  not  sacrifice,  provided  they  would 
show  due  gratitude  to  their  benefactors. 

§  XII.  Contests  respecting  the  Lapsed.  This  great  multitude  of 
apo-states  caused  a  large  portion  of  the  Christian  community  to 
be  thrown  into  commotion  ;  and  here  and  there  it  produced  in- 
veterate contests.  For  while  those  persons  wished  to  be  rein- 
stated in  the  church,  without  undergoing  the  long  penances  pre- 
scribed by  the  ecclesiastical  laws ;  and  some  of  the  doctors,  from 
a  pjopensity  towards  lenity,  favored  that  course ;  and  others  of  a 
sterner  mould,  and  more  rigidly  adhering  to  the  ancient  discip- 
line, resisted  it;  parties  very  naturally  arose  among  the  Christians. 
Very  many  of  the  lapsed,  especially  in  Egypt  and  Africa,(')  in 
order  to  obtain  more  readily  a  reconciliation  with  their  bishops 
and  churches,  employed  the  martyrs  to  intercede  for  them.  For 
as  the  reputation  and  influence  of  martyrs  and  confessors  amono- 
the  early  Christians  were  amazingly  great,  and  their  decisions 


Contests  about  the  Lapsed.  39 

were  regarded  as  almost  divine,  it  had  become  the  custom,  [p.  490.] 
even  in  the  preceding  century,(')  to  admit  to  the  communion  those 
among  the  hipsed  who  could  procure  a  testimonial  of  fraternal 
love  from  a  martyr,  on  their  exhibiting  to  him  a  few  signs  of 
contrition.  Such  testimonies  from  a  mart3^r,  signifying  that  he 
could  forgive  and  hold  fellowship  with  certain  persons,  were 
usually  called  Libdli  Pads,  During  this  Decian  persecution,  some 
martyrs  in  Africa  abused  this  prerogative  immoderately;  and 
some  of  the  bishops  and  presbyters,  either  from  fear  or  veneration 
of  the  martyrs,  or  from  ignorance  of  ecclesiastical  law,  were  too 
ready  to  receive  the  offenders  who  were  provided  with  these 
certificates,(^)  To  the  evils  which  were  to  be  apprehended  from 
this  imprudence  and  ready  acquiescence,  Cyprian^  the  bishop  of 
Carthage,  placed  himself  in  strong  opposition.  Being  then  absent 
from  his  chiu'ch,  he  wrote  Epistles,  recommending  that  this  lenity 
should  be  tempered  with  due  severity,  and  that  proper  limits  be 
set  to  the  rule  Respecting  the  certificates  of  peace.  And  hence  he 
became  involved  in  a  troublesome  controversy  with  the  mart}- rs, 
the  confessors,  the  presbyters,  the  lapsed,  and  the  people ;  but 
from  it  he  came  forth  victorious.(^) 

(1)  Respecting  Eg3'pt,  see  Dionysius  Alexandrinus,  (apud  Euseb.  Hist. 
Eecles.  L.  vi.  c.  44.) — As  to  Africa,  Cyprian's  Epistles  are  full  on  the  subject, 

(2)  The  learned  have  long  remarked,  that  TerluUian  is  the  earliest  writer 
who  mentions  this  custom  ;  towards  the  close  of  his  book,  de  Pudicilia,  (c.  22.) 
and  in  his  book,  ad  Marlyres,  (c.  1.)  See  Gabr.  Aibaspinaeus,  (Observ.  Eecles. 
L.  i.  Observ.  20.  p.  94.) — Hence  it  is  concluded,  that  this  custom  was  not  older 
than  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 

(3)  Under  the  title  of  Martyrs  were  included,  those  on  whom  a  sentence  of 
death  had  already  been  passed,  and  also  those  who  had  sustained  very  grievous 
sufferings  for  Christ's  sake,  and  were  still  det^iined  in  prison,  uncertain  what  was 
to  befall  them.  As  to  the  right  of  these  martyrs  to  give  certificates  of  peace 
when  so  requested,  there  was  no  dispute.  Neither  did  any  one  deny,  or  pre- 
tend to  deny,  that  a  shorter  and  lighter  penance  was  to  be  imposed  on  the 
persons  presenting  such  certificates  to  the  bishop.  Whoever  should  have  con- 
troverted either  of  these  points,  would  have  been  accused  of  violating  the 
sanctity  and  dignity  of  the  martyrs;  nay,  of  high  treason  against  the  majesty 
of  God,  who,  as  many  supposed,  spoke  and  gave  his  decisions  throngii  the 
martyrs.  The  only  controversy  was,  respecting  the  manner  in  which  this  right 
was  to  be  used,  and  the  extent  of  the  influence  to  be  allowed  to  these  certifi- 
cates. These  Libelli  Pads  were  not  introduced  by  any  law  or  canon,  but  only 
by  custom  ;  and  theretore,  it  was  uncertain  how  far  this  right  extended.  And 
this  uncertainty  occasioned  many  things  to  be  done  by  the  martyrs,  during  the 


40  Century  III. — Section  12. 

Decian  persecution,  whch  were  highly  detrimental  to  the  welfare  of  the  chnrch, 
[p.  491.]  and  which,  therefore,  Cyprian  and  other  bishops  felt  bound  to  cei»- 
sure. — In  the  first  place,  whereas  certificates  had  formerly  been  given  by  the 
martyrs  to  only  a  few  individuals,  and  this  after  a  careful  examination  of  each 
case ;  in  the  present  persecution,  tliey  were  distributed  among  all,  without  dis- 
crimination or  distinction  ;  and  the  bishops  were  of  course  overwhelmed  with 
a  multitude  of  these  certificates  of  peace.  Says  Cyprian  (Epistola  xiv.  p.  24.)  : 
Cum  comperissem,  lapsos  exambire  ad  martyres  passim,  confcssores  quoque, 
importuna  et  gratiosa  deprecatione  corrumpere,  ut  sine  ullo  discrimine  aique 
examine  singulorum,  darentur  quoiidie  libellorum  millia  (a  definite  number  is 
here  rhetorically  used  for  one  indefinite,)  contra  Evangelii  legem,  litteras  feci» 
quibus  martyres  et  confcssores,  consilio  meo  quantum  possem  ad  dominica  prse- 
cepta  revocarcm.  There  are  several  other  passages  in  Cyprian,  which  speak  of 
the  immense  number  of  the  certificates  given  by  the  martyrs.  On  the  evils  re- 
sulting from  them,  there  is  no  need  to  expatiate.  With  the  full  expectation  of 
obtaining  such  certificates,  everybody  hurried  away  to  the  judicial  tribunals, 
and  publicly  renouncing  Christ,  offered  sacrifice  to  the  gods ;  and  then,  as  if 
they  had  done  right,  they  proceeded  to  the  prisons,  where  the  more  resolute 
Christians  were  detained  awaiting  their  final  sentence,  and  requested  certificates 
of  peace ;  and,  having  readily  obtained  them,  they  repaired  t©  the  bishops,  and 
asked  to  be  restored  to  fellowship  in  the  church,  on  the  ground  that  the  martyrs 
recognised  them  in  their  certificates  as  brethren.  In  the  persecutions  of  former 
times,  the  prudence  of  the  bishops  had  laid  checks  upon  this  evil,  arising  from 
the  indiscretion  of  ignorant  and  illiterate  martyrs.  For  they  sent  discreet  and 
well  informed  deacons  to  the  prisons,  to  advise  the  martyrs,  and  prevent  their 
giving  certificates  indiscriminately,  or  to  any  but  persons-  worthy  of  their  kind 
offices.  But  under  Decius,  this  wise  course  was  neglected;  and  hence  arose  the 
sad  confusion,  and  the  unmeasured  liberality  of  the  martyrs.  Let  us  hear  Cy- 
prian on  the  subject  (Epistola  x.  p.  20.)  :  In  pra)teritum  semper  sub  anteces- 
soribus  nostris  factum  est,  ut  diaconi  ad  carcerem  commeantes  martyrum  deside- 
ria  consiliis  suis  et  scripturarum  praBceptis  gubernarent.  Sed  nunc  cum  maximo 
animi  dolore  cognosce,  non  tantum  illic  vobis  non  suggeri  divina  pnecepta,  sed 
adhuc  potius  impediri.  Most  earnestly,  therefore,  the  holy  man  conjures  the 
martyrs  to  follow  the  example  of  their  predecessors,  and  not  to  give  their  opinion 
in  any  case,  without  close  inspection  and  examination.  Quoniam  audio,  for- 
tissimi  et  carrissimi  fratres,  impudentia  vos  quorundam  premi  -  -  oro  vos  quibus 
possum  prccibus,  aut  Evangelii  memores  et  considerantes  quae  et  qualia  in  prse- 
teritum  antecessores  vestri  martyres  concesserint,  quam  solliciti  in  omnibus  fue- 
rint,  vos  quoque  sollicite  et  caute  petentium  desideria  ponderetis,  utpote  amici 
[p.  492.]  Domini,  et  inspiciatis  et  actum  et  opera  et  merita  singulorum,  ipsorum 
quoque  delictorum  genera  et  qualitales  cogitetis,  ne  si  quid  abrupte  et  indigne 
vel  a  vobis  promissum,  vel  a  nobis  factum  fuerit,  apud  gentiles  quoque  ipsos 
ecclesia  nostra  erubescere  incipiat.  From  this  language  it  is  very  manifest  that 
it  was  not  the  right  of  the  martyrs  to  give  certificates  of  peace  to  the  lapsed, 
recommending  them  to  the  churches,  but  only  the  use  of  this  right,  which  wjia 
the  subject  of  controversy. 


Contests  about  the   Lapsed.  41 

This  error  was  accompanied  by  another  of  no  less  magnitude.  The  martyrs, 
in  this  Decian  persecution,  did  not  always  insert  the  names  of  the  persons  to 
whom  they  wished  the  church  to  be  reconciled,  but  naming  an  individual,  they 
connected  with  him  a  company  who  were  not  named;  that  is,  they  recom- 
mended to  the  communion  of  the  church,  all  those  whom  the  bearer  of  the  cer- 
tificate might  bring  forward  as  his  friends  and  associates.  Whoever,  thereibre> 
had  obtained  sucli  a  vague  and  indeterminate  certificate,  might,  at  his  discretion, 
make  all  he  pleased  partakers  with  him  in  the  benefit  conferred.  And  some,  if 
I  am  not  deceived,  so  abused  this  pernicious  power,  as  actually  to  sell  the  pri- 
vilege of  sharing  in  the  certificate.  This,  I  think,  I  can  discover  in  tiie  some- 
what obscure  language  of  Cyprian  (Epist.  x.  p.  20.) :  Intelligentes  et  compri- 
mentes  eos,  (he  is  addressing  martyrs,)  qui  personas  accipienies  in  benejlciis  ves- 
tris,  (i.  e.  who  extend  your  favors,  not  to  those  worthy  of  them,  but  to  those 
they  choose,  however  unworthy,)  aut  gi'atijicaniur,  (i.  e.  either  give  them  away,) 
out  ilUcilcc  negotiationis  nundinas  aucupantur,  (i.  e.  or  search  for  buyers  of  the 
priviliges  contained  in  the  certificate,  thus  making  merchandise  of  the  privileges 
they  had  obtained.)  On  discovering  Christians  of  such  corrupted  morals  and 
perverse  minds,  in  this  early  age  of  the  church,  we  need  not  greatly  wonder  at 
the  temerity  and  licentiousness  of  the  subsequent  ages,  in  making  everything 
sacred  venal,  and  converting  the  sins  of  men  into  a  source  of  gain.  But  this 
was  then  a  new  crime ;  for  the  martyrs  of  earlier  times  did  not  give  such  cer- 
tificates. At  this  period,  doubtless,  there  were  evil-minded  and  cunning  men, 
who  did  not  stop  with  renouncing  Christ,  but  were  willing  to  add  sin  to  sin,  and 
therefore  blandly  persuaded  the  honest  but  uneducated  martyrs,  who  had  none 
to  direct  and  guide  them,  to  issue  such  certificates.  Of  this  wrong  conduct, 
Cyprian  himself  complains,  (Epist.  x.  pp.  20.  21.)  :  Sed  et  illud  ad  diligentiam 
vestrara  redigere  et  emendare  debetis,  ut  nominatim  designetis  eos,  quibus  pa- 
cem  dari  desideratis.  Audio  enim  quibusdam  sic  libellos  fieri,  ut  dicatur: 
"  Communicet  ille  cum  suis  :"  quod  nunquam  onmino  a  martyribus  factum  est, 
ut  incerta  et  coeca  petitio  invidiam  nobis  postmodum  cumulet.  Late  enim  patet, 
quando  dicitur:  "Jlle  cum  suis;"  et  possunt  nobis  viceni  et  triceni  et  amplius 
offerri,  qui  propinqui  et  affines  et  liberti  ac  domestici  esse  asseverentur  ejus,  qui 
accepit  libellum.  Et  ideo  peto,  ut  eos,  quos  ipsi  videtes,  quos  nostis,  [p.  493.] 
quorum  poenitentiam  satisfactioni  proximam  conspicitis,  designetis  nominatim 
libello,  et  sic  ad  nos  fidei  ac  disciplinse  congruentes  litteras  dirigatis. 

Some  of  the  martyrs,  before  dying  for  Christ,  gave  direction  to  certain  of 
their  friends  to  issue  certificates  in  their  names,  when  dead,  indiscriminately,  to 
all  who  should  ask  for  them.  An  example  of  this  we  have  in  the  Epistle  of 
Lucian,  a  Confessor,  to  Celerinvs,  (among  the  Epistles  of  Cyprian,  Epist.  xxi. 
p.  30.) :  Cum  benedictus  martyr  Paulus,  adhuc  in  eorpore  esset,  voeavit  me  et 
dixit  mihi:  Luciane,  coram  Christo  dico  tibi,  ut  si  quis  post  arcessitionem  meam, 
(i.  e.  after  I  am  put  to  death,)  abs  te  pacem  petierit,  da  in  nomine  meo.  And 
Cyprian  informs  us,  (Epist.  xxii.  p.  31.)  that  this  Lwc/ar?,  whom  he  pronounces 
a  man  of  piety,  but  not  well  informed  on  religious  subjects :  Libellos  manu  sua 
scriptos  gregatim  nomine  Pauli  dabat.  Cyprian  adds:  Lucianus,  non  tantum 
Paulo  adhuc  in  carcere  posito,  nomine  illius  libellos  manu  sua  scriptos  passim 


42  Century  IIL—Scctlon  12. 

dedil,  sed  et  post  ejus  excessum  cadem  facere  sub  ejus  nomine  perscvemv  it,  di- 
cens  hoc  sibi  ab  illo  mandatum.  And  this  same  Lucius  gave  certificates  in  the 
name  of  another  martyr,  Aurelius,  who  was  unable  to  write  :  Auiciii  quoquc 
adoiescentis  tormenta  perpessi  nomine,  libelli  multi  dati  sunt  ejusdeni  Luc-iani 
manu  scripti,  quod  litteras  ille  non  nosset.  Tiie  martyrs  who  were  so  liberal  as 
to  order  certificates  to  be  given  to  all  applicants,  when  they  were  dead,  apjiear 
to  have  cherished  a  great  error  by  believing,  that  so  great  was  the  efficacy  of 
the  death  they  were  about  to  suffer,  that  it  could  expiate  the  sins  of  other  per- 
sons; and  tiiat  the  injunctions  of  a  deceased  and  triumphant  martyr  were  ]ier- 
fectly  satisfactory  both  to  God  and  to  men.  Thus  much  is  certain,  and  is 
manifest  from  Cyprian's  Epistles,  and  from  his  book  de  Lapsis,  that  most  of  the 
martyrs  were  ignorant  of  the  true  grounds  of  these  certificates  of  peace ;  and 
they  imagined  grounds  for  them  quite  inconsistent  with  the  Christian  religion. 
This  Cyprian  in  some  measure  perceived,  as  appears,  among  other  things,  from 
his  reprehension  of  Lucian's  proceedings,  (Epist.  xxi.  p.  32.)  :  Cum  Dominus 
dixerit,  in  nomine  Patris  et  Filii  et  Spiritus  Sancti  gentes  tingi,  et  in  bajjtismo 
praeterita  peccata  dimitti,  hie  prcecepti  et  legis  ignarus  mandat  pacem  dari  et  pec- 
cata  dimitti  in  Pauli  nomine,  et  hoc  sibi  dicit  ab  illo  esse  mandatum.  This  is  a 
frigid  and  futile  argument;  as  also  are,  it  must  be  confessed,  many  others  oc- 
curing  in  the  writings  of  Cyprian.  This  excellent  man  is  not  entirely  self'-con- 
sistenr,  on  this  whole  subject;  and  he  especially  vacillates  in  regard  to  the  force 
and  the  ground  of  these  certificates;  yet  he  partially  apprehended  the  subject. 
Those  who  gave  the  certificates,  whether  from  their  ignorance,  or  from  rash  and 
hasty  judgments,  really  believed  that  martyrs  received  power  from  God  to  for- 
give sins,  and  remit  the  penalties  incurred  by  transgressors.  And  Cyprian  ef- 
fected nothing,  either  by  the  preceding  argument,  or  by  any  others.  For  this 
[p.  494.]  Lucian,  whom  he  endeavored  to  set  right,  being  provoked  and  irritated 
by  Cyprian's  letters,  burst  every  bond  of  modesty,  and,  getting  others  of  the 
confessors  to  join  him,  issued,  in  his  own  name,  and  in  that  of  all  the  con- 
fessors, a  general  certificate  of  peace,  requiring  that  all  the  lapsed,  without  ex- 
ception, should  be  restored  to  the  church.  Says  Cyprian  (Epist.  xxii.  p.  31.)  : 
Postquara  ad  Confessoros  litteras  mi.si,  ut  quasi  moderatius  aliquid  et  tempe- 
rantius  fieret,  universorum  Confessorum  nomine  idem  Lucianus  epistolam 
scripsit,  qua  pajne  omne  vinculum  fidci  et  timer  Dei  et  mandatum  Domini  et 
Evangelii  sanctitas  et  firmitas  solveretur.  Scripsit  enim  omnium  nomine  unicer- 
sis  (lapsis)  eos  pacem  dedis.se,  et  banc  formam  per  me  aliis  episcopis  innotes- 
cere  velle  :  cujus  epistolae  exemplum  ad  vos  transmisi. 

This  improper  conduct  of  the  martyrs,  who  were  generally  illiterate  and  un- 
acquainted with  the  Christian  discipline,  might  perhaps  have  been  easily  check- 
ed and  corrected,  if  the  presbyters  and  bishops  had  done  their  duty.  But  they, 
actuated  by  hatred  of  Cyprian  and  by  other  motives,  shamefully  increased  the 
evil,  and  wished  more  to  be  conceded  than  the  martyrs  asked  for.  It  was  not 
the  aim  of  the  martyrs  to  subvert  all  order  and  to  prostrate  the  authority  of  the 
bishops  by  means  of  their  certificates,  nor  to  exempt  those  whom  they  u'lder- 
took  to  patronise  entirely  from  ecclesiastical  penalties.  This  is  clear,  from  the 
language  of  Lucian  himself,  tlie  most  audacious  and  indiscreet  of  them  all: 


Contests  about   the  Lapsed.  48 

{Cyprian,  Epist.  xxi.  p.  30.)  :  Et  ideo,  Fnitcr,  pelo,  ut,  sieut  hie,  cum  Dominus 
coeperit  i|;8i^  eccleyiae  pacein  dare,  secundum  praeceptum  Pauli  (not,  Paul  the 
apostle,  but  Paul  the  martyr,  in  whose  name  Lucian  issued  the  certificates,)  et 
nostrum  tr.ictatum,  exposita  caussa  apud  episcopum,  et  facta  exomologc<i,  ha- 
Leant  pacem  non  tantum  hae,  sed  et  quas  scia  ad  animum  nostrum  pertinere. 
It  appears  therefore, — 1.  That  he  did  not  wish  the  lapsed  to  be  immedi.itely  re- 
stored  to  the  church,  from  which  they  iiad  excluded  themselves  by  sinning;  but 

he  would  have  tiic  matter  postponed,  till  the  return  of  more  tranquil  times. 

2.  That  he  did  not  ask  to  have  the  lapsed  restored  to  communion,  without  the 
cognisance  and  assent  of  the  bishop. — 3.  That  he  would  have  the  Lipscd  pub- 
licly confess  their  fault,  and  humbly  ask  the  forgiveness  of  the  church:  Exo- 
mologesm  facere.  He  by  no  means  wished  all  the  lapsed,  who  held  certificates, 
to  be  received  without  any  punishment,  but  only  those  who,  after  their  fall,  lead 
a  manifestly  pious  and  holy  life.  This  condition  Lucian  expressly  added,  in  that 
general  certificate,  which  was  so  particularly  offensive  to  Cyprian.  Says 
Cyprian,  (Epist.  xxii.  p.  31.):  Additum  est  plane,  dequibus  ratio  constiterit,  quid 
post  commissum  egerint.  Lucian  therefore  allowed  enquiry  into  the  conduct 
of  those  presenting  certificates,  and  would  deprive  of  the  benefits  of  their  certi- 
cates  those  guilty  of  new  transgression.?.  Similar  prudence  and  moderation 
were  observed  by  other  martyrs  in  giving  certificates  of  peace ;  as  Cyprian  has 
recorded  in  repeated  instances.  Thus,  (Epist.  ix.  p.  19.):  Martyres  memores 
loci  nostri  ad  me  litteras  direxerunt,  et  petierunt  tunc  desideria  sua  [p.  495.] 
examinari  et  pacem  dari,  qnando  ipsa  antea  mater  nostra  ecclesia  pacem  de 
misericordia  Domini  prior  sumpserit  et  nos  divina  protectio  reduces  ad  eccle- 
siam  suam  fecerit.  And  (Epist.  x.  p.  20.)  addressing  the  martyrs,  he  says: 
Litteras  ad  me  direxistis,  quibus  examinari  disideria  vestra  et  quibusdam  lapsis 
pacem  dari  postulastis,  cum  persecutione  finita  convenire  in  unum  cum  clero  et 
recolligi  coeperimus.  See  also  Epist.  xi.  p.  21.  Many  also  of  the  lapsed, 
though  possessed  of  certificates,  wished  nothing  to  be  done  preposterously,  but 
very  modestly  submitted  their  case  to  the  judgment  of  the  bishop.  Says  Cy- 
frian,  (Epist.  xxviii.  p.  38.)  :  Scripserunt  mihi  nuper  quidam  de  lapsis  humiles 
et  mites  et  trementes  et  metuentes  Deum,  et  qui  in  eeclesia  semper  gloriose  et 

granditer  operati  sunt. Et  quamvis  libello  a  martyribus  accepto,  ut  tanien  a 

Domino  satisftictio  sua  admitti  possit,  orantes  scripserunt  mihi,  se  delictum  suum 
cognoscere  et  poenitentiam  veram  agere,  nee  ad  pacem  temere  aut  importune 
properare,  sed  expectare  praesentiam  nostram,  dicentes  pacem  quosque  ipsam, 
si  eam  nobis  praesentibus  acceperint,  dulciorem  sibi  futuram.  Certnin  of  the 
presbyters,  however,  at  the  mere  sight  of  these  certificates,  in  utter  disregard  of 
the  re^psct  due  to  the  bishop,  and  contrary  to  all  order,  not  even  requiring  any 
public  confession  of  their  faults,  admitted  all  sorts  of  lapsed  persons,  at  once, 
not  only  to  the  assemblies  of  the  church,  but  even  to  the  Lord's  supper ; — than 
which,  nothing  in  that  age  could  be  more  indiscreet,  or  more  injurious  to  the 
church.  Says  Cyprian,  (Epist.  x.  p.  20.) :  Presbyteri  quidam  nee  timorem  Dei, 
nee  episcopi  honorem  cogitantes — contra  Evangelii  legem,  contra  vestram  quo- 
que  (he  is  addressing  the  m:irtyrs,)  honorificam  petitionem,  (mark  the  circnm- 
spection  he  uses,)  ante  actam  poenitentiam,  ante  exomologesin  gravissinii  atque 


44  Century  III— Section  12. 

extremi  delicti  factam,  ante  maimm  ab  episcopo  et  clcro  in  poenitentiam  impo- 
sitarn,  offerre  pro  illis  et  eiicharistiara  dare,  id  est,  sanctum  Domini,  corpus  pro- 
phanare  audent.  With  grief  he  repeats  the  same  in  the  following  Letter, 
(Epist.  xi.  p.  21.)  These  presbyters,  envying  Cyprian  the  honors  paid  him, 
stirred  up  the  martyrs  and  confessors  to  demand  that  more  respect  should  be 
given  to  their  certificates  than  heretofore,  and  that  disregarding  the  authority  of 
the  bishops,  the  lapsed  should  be  restored,  with  no  delay  whatever.  Says  Cy- 
prian,  (Epist.  xl.  p.  52.; :  Hi  fonienta  dim  quibusdam  Confessoribus  et  horttu 
menta  tribuebant,  ne  eoncordarent  cum  episcopo  suo,  ne  ecclesiasticam  disci- 
plinam  cum  fide  et  qulete  juxta  praecepta  dominica  continerent,  ne  confessionia 
suae  gloriara  incorrupta  et  immaculata  conversatione  servarent.  Hence  those 
great  and  turbulent  movements,  both  of  the  confessors  and  the  lapsed;  the  for- 
mer demanding  that  their  certificates  should  have  the  effect  of  laws  and  man- 
dates, and  the  latter,  that  instant  admittance  should  be  allowed  them  to  all  the 
sacred  rites,  on  the  ground  of  their  certificates.  In  our  province,  says  Cyprian, 
(Epist.  xxii.  pp.  31,  32.) :  Per  aliquot  civitates  in  prajpositos  (the  bishops,)  im- 
[p.  496.]  petus  per  multitudinem  factus  est,  et  pacem,  quam  semel  cuncti  a 
martyribus  et  confessoribus  datam  clamitabant,  confestim  sibi  repreesentari  co- 
egerunt,  territis  et  subactis  pracpositis  suis,  qui  ad  resistendum  minus  virtute 
animi  et  robore  fidei  pra^valebant.     Apud  nos  etiam  quidam  turbulenti,  qui  vix 

a  nobis  in  praiteritum  regebantur,  et  in  nostram  prajsentiam  differebantur 

velut  quibusdam  facibus  accensi  plus  exardescere  et  pacem  sibi  datnm  extor- 
quere  cceperunt.  Some  of  the  lapsed  had  the  audacity  to  send  insulting  letters 
to  Cyprian,  in  which  they  did  not  ask  for  reconciliation,  but  claimed  that  they 
had  already  obtained  it.  (Epist.  xxix.  p.  39,  40.)  :  Quorumdam  lapsorum  con- 
spirata  temeritas,  qui  poenitentiam  agere  et  Deo  satisfacere  detrectant,  litteras 
ad  me  fecerunt,  pacem  non  dandam  sibi  postulantes,  sed  quasi  jam  datara  sibi 
vindicantes,  quod  dicant  Pauluin  omnibus  pacem  dedisse. 

(4)  Cyprian  endeavored  to  repress  the  disturbances  produced  by  the  certi- 
ficates of  peace,  in  their  commencement,  by  three  grave  and  explicit  Epistles, 
addressed,  respectively,  to  the  Confessors,  the  priests,  and  the  people.  In  these 
Epistles  he  urged  to  have  the  subject  postponed  until  he  should  return  to  his 
see ;  and  the  Confessors  he  exhorted  to  use  prudence  and  moderation,  and  the 
people  to  wait  quietly  till  the  persecution  should  terminate.  But,  for  various 
reasons,  these  Epistles  only  created  still  greater  disturbances,  as  we  have  al- 
ready intimated.  The  confessors  and  martyrs,  especially,  urged  their  rights  with 
earnestness;  and  open  opposition  to  them  would  have  been  hazardous.  The 
Lucian  before  mentioned,  in  that  general  certificate  of  peace  which  he  wrote  in 
the  name  of  all  the  confessors,  threatened  Cyprian  pretty  distinctly,  that  if  he 
persevered  in  resisting  the  wishes  and  demands  of  the  martyrs,  the  result  would 
be,  that  himself  and  other  martyrs  would  exclude  Cyprian  from  their  commu- 
nion. This  short,  but  threatening  and  arrogant  Epistle  of  Lucian,  is  worth  in- 
serting here,  from  Cyprian,  (Epist.  xvi.  p.  26.)  :  Universi  Confessores  Cypriano 
Papae  salutem  !  Scias,  nos  universis,  de  quibus  apud  te  ratio  constiterit,  quid 
post  commissum  egerint,  dedisse  pacem.  Et  banc  formam  per  te  et  aliis  episco- 
j)is  innotescere  volumus.     Oplamus  ie  cum  Sanctis  martyribus  pacem  habere. 


youahfs    of   Carthage.  45 

Preesente  de  clero  et  exorcista  et  lectorc.  What  Luci:m  here  says  of  liis  wish- 
ing Cyprian  pacem  habere  cum  marlyrilms,  amounts  undoubtedly  to  this  :  We 
will  deprive  you  of  our  peace,  unless  you  confirm  the  peace  given  by  us  ;  notwith- 
standing all  the  efforts  of  Stephen  Bahiz,  ( in  his  notes  on  the  passajje,)  to 
extenuate  the  folly  of  this  language.  Had  they  carried  these  threats  into  exe- 
cution, they  would  doubtless  have  brought  the  good  man  into  great  trouble. 
He  was  therefore  obliged  to  yield  a  little,  and  to  treat  this  dangerous  subject 
cautiously  and  prudently.  While  he  was  laboring  and  trembling,  the  Roman 
priests  and  confessors  afforded  him  aid,  by  their  epistle  addressed  to  the  priests 
and  the  people  of  Carthage,  in  which  they  approved  and  lauded  the  course  he 
had  pursued.  They  also  wrote  to  Cyprian  himself,  who  had  by  his  letters  en- 
deavored to  bring  them  to  espouse  his  cause.  These  epistles  from  Rome  seem 
to  have  set  this  controversy  nearly  at  rest ;  for  we  meet  with  few  or  [p.  497.] 
no  traces  of  it  afterwards. — When  Cyprian  returned  to  his  church  on  the  ter- 
mination of  the  Decian  persecution,  he  called  a  council  at  Carthage,  the  Acta 
and  Canons  of  which  are  mentioned  by  him  in  several  of  his  Epistles,  ( See 
Epistt.  lii.  liii.  Iv.  Ivi.  Ixviii.)  A  principal  subject  of  discussion  in  the  council, 
was  the  case  of  the  lapsed,  and  the  penance  they  should  perform.  But  it  does 
not  appear,  that  the  influence  which  certificates  of  peace  given  by  martyrs 
ought  to  have,  was  discussed  and  settled.  This  subject  seems  to  have  been 
designedly  passed  over,  and  consigned  to  oblivion.  For  it  was  full  of  danger 
and  difficulty;  because,  while  consulting  the  interests  of  the  church,  the  honors 
and  authority  of  the  martyrs  and  confessors,  whom  the  people  venerated  ex- 
cessively, could  not  be  safely  underrated.  Cyprian  in  all  his  Epistles  upon 
this  subject,  proceeds  as  if  treading  on  the  treacherous  embers  of  a  sleeping 
volcano,  and  is  exceedingly  careful  not  to  appear  to  depreciate  the  honors  and 
the  dignity  of  the  martyrs.  Yet  with  all  his  prudence  he  could  not  escape 
entirely  the  indignation  of  the  martyrs  and  the  complaints  of  the  people. 
Wliat  then  would  have  occurred,  if  he  had  ventured,  in  the  council,  in  the  pre- 
sence of  so  many  living  confessors,  idolized  by  the  people,  to  call  their  prero- 
gatives in  question,  and  to  set  definite  limits  to  the  effects  of  their  certificates 
of  peace  ?  What  contention,  what  clamors,  what  disputes  would  have  arisen  1 
After  this  contest,  1  find  no  further  mention  of  certificates  of  peace,  in  any 
ancient  history  of  the  Christians.  I  therefore  suspect  that  the  bishops,  becom- 
ing more  cautious  and  prudent,  in  view  of  this  troublesome  case,  whenever  a 
persecution  broke  out,  pursued  the  old  custom,  and  sent  presbyters  and  dea- 
cons to  the  prisons,  to  instruct  and  guide  the  martyrs,  and  prevent  their  being 
too  liberal  and  indiscreet  in  the  issue  of  such  certificates. 

§  XIII.  Contest  between  Cyprian  and  Novatus.  The  contro- 
versy just  described,  was  accompanied  by  another  more  trivial 
and  limited  in  its  nature,  but,  on  account  of  its  source  and  origin, 
greater  and  more  formidable ;  for  it  arose  from  hatred  and  the 
indulgence  of  unrestrained  passion ;  and  it  was  protracted,  and 
was  conducted  with  an  animosity,  perhaps,  greater  than  the  case 


46  Century  HI. — Section  13. 

demanded,  till  it  ended  in  a  deplorable  scliism.(')  N'ovatus,  a 
presbyter  of  Carthage,  even  prior  to  the  persecution  under  De- 
cius,  had  had  disagreement  with  Cyprian,  his  bishop,  for  some 
cause  nut  now  known,  and  had  drawn  off  some  of  the  brethren 
from  him ;  that  is,  he  had  persuaded  them  not  to  follow  the  de- 
mands of  the  bishop  in  everything. Q  If  we  give  credit  to  his 
adversary's  statements,  N'ovatus  was  not  only  factious,  vain,  and 
rash,  but  also  guilty  of  many  offences  and  crimes.  Cyprian, 
therefore,  purposed  to  call  him  to  a  judicial  trial,  and  to  exclude 
[p.  498.]  him  from  the  communion  of  the  church.  And  the  day 
for  his  trial  had  been  appointed,  when,  suddenly,  the  publication 
of  the  emperor's  edict  intervened ;  and,  as  it  obliged  Cyprian  to 
betake  himself  to  flight,  N'ovatus  remained  safe  in  his  former  po- 
sition.(^)    This  was  the  first  act  in  this  protracted  drama. 

(1)  The  history  of  the  two-fold  schism,  produced  by  Novalus  and  Nova- 
tian  at  Rome,  and  by  Felicissimus  at  Carthage,  in  the  midst  of  the  Decian  per- 
secution, must  be  gathered  from  the  Epistles  of  Cyprian,  from  Eusehius,  from 
the  Fabulai  Ifereticorum  of  Theodoret,  and  from  detached  passages  of  other 
ancient  writers.  Yet  the  few  documents  we  have  relative  to  this  protracted 
contest,  are  insufficient  to  give  us  a  full  and  perfect  knowledge  of  it.  The 
primary  and,  so  to  speak,  interior  causes  of  this  conflict,  are,  in  great  measure, 
undiscoverable ;  nor  will  equity  or  reason  permit  us  to  believe  everything  true, 
which  is  told  us  by  Cyprian  and  the  other  bitter  enemies  of  Novalus  and  his 
friends.  If  I  am  not  greatly  deceived,  there  were  faults  on  both  sides ;  but 
which  was  most  blameable,  the  scantiness  of  the  records  that  have  reached  us, 
make  it  very  difficult  to  decide.  The  short  statement  of  this  controversy  given 
above,  differs  in  some  respects,  from  that  heretofore  given  by  the  learned.  Yet 
I  have  stated  nothing  without  good  reason ;  nor  can  the  order  and  connexion 
of  the  events  be  apprehended  differently.  The  affairs  of  Novalus,  of  Felicissi- 
mus, and  of  Novalian  were  certainly  connected;  and  yet,  in  some  sense,  they 
were  disconnected.  This  connexion  in  some  respects  and  disconnexion  in 
others,  have  not  been  carefully  discriminated,  by  most  of  those  who  have 
written  on  the  subject ;  and  often  they  so  mix  up  things,  that  their  readers  are 
left  in  great  perplexity  and  uncertainty.  I  make  no  exceptions  among  even 
the  most  distinguished  expounders  of  the  affairs  of  Christians. 

(2)  Novalus,  with  whom  this  whole  controversy  originated,  was  undoubt- 
edly a  Carthagenian  presbyter.  For  no  one  who  reads  the  Epistles  of  Cyprian 
censuring  him,  will  give  credit  to  Baronius,  who  would  make  him  a  bishop. 
And  yet,  if  I  can  judge,  he  was  not  one  of  the  presbyters  who  served  the  prin- 
cipal church  and  were  always  near  the  bishop,  but  he  presided  over  a  separate 
congregation  distinct  from  the  principal  church.  I  think  this  may  be  inferred 
from  the  fact,  that  he  created  Felicissimus  a  deacon;  of  which  Cyprian  so 
bitterly  complains,  (Epist.  xlix.  p.  63.)  :  Ipse  (Novatus)  est,  qui  Felicissimum 


Novatus   of   Carthage.  47 

Bntcllitem  suiim  diaconuiii,  nee  permittciito  me,  nee  scicntc,  sua  factione  et  am- 
bitione  constitnit.  Whether  this  occurred  while  Cyprian  was  at  C:\rlliaife,  or 
in  iiis  nbsencc  during  the  persecution,  I  think  we  must  come  to  the  conclusion 
stated.  If  Novatus  ventured  to  do  this,  before  the  persecution,  and  while 
Cyprian  was  in  Carthage,  (which  is  quite  supposeble,)  it  must  be  [p.  499,] 
manifest,  that  Novatus  had  charge  of  a  separate  congregation  distinct  from  that 
of  Cyprian.  For  how  could  an  individual  presbyter  create  a  deacon  in  the 
bishop's  own  church,  and  the  bishop  be  present,  and  not  know  of  it?  IIow 
could  he  have  so  obtruded  this  deacon  upon  the  bishop  ?  If  this  occurred  dur- 
ing the  absence  of  Cyprian,  we  must  come  to  the  same  conclusion.  For 
although  some  of  the  presbyters  and  a  portion  of  the  people  were  not  very 
partial  to  Cyprian,  yot  the  greater  part  of  the  church  had  the  highest  respect 
and  reverence  for  him  ;  and  therefore,  no  presbyter  could  so  manage  as  to 
cause  a  deacon  to  be  appointed  without  the  bishop's  knowledge  and  contrary 
to  his  pleasure.  The  wliole,  or  at  least  the  greater  part  of  the  church  would 
have  resisted  it,  and  have  cried  out  that  the  head  of  the  church  must  be  con- 
sulted and  have  a  voice  in  the  matter.  But  the  congregations  that  were  sepa- 
rate from  the  mother  church  and  the  bishop,  and  had  their  own  appropriate 
presbyters,  had  likewise  their  own  deacons;  and  if  Novatus  had  charge  of  such 
a  church,  he  might  have  created  Felicissimus  a  deacon  in  his  church,  without 
the  knowledge  or  consent  of  the  bishop.  And  this  supposition  is  confirmed  by 
the  language  used  by  Cyprian.  For  it  appears,  that  Novatus  did  not  create  a 
deacon  by  his  own  sole  authority  and  choice,  but,  as  Cyprian' s\ar\gua.gQ  shows, 
(sua  factione  et  amhiiione,)  in  his  fiictious  ambitious  spirit,  by  flattery  and  in- 
trigue, he  persuaded  the  church  under  him  to  elect  Felicissimus  deacon.  Had 
Novatus  simply  assumed,  contrary  to  ecclesiastical  law,  the  power  of  consti- 
tuting a  deacon  in  his  own  church,  there  would  not  be  ground  for  charging 
him  with  either  faction  or  ambition.  Besides,  Cyprian  does  not  blame  him  for 
recommending  to  his  church  the  election  of  Felicissimus  to  the  office  of  deacon, 
which  it  was  lawful  and  right  for  him  to  do ;  but  he  complained,  that  Novatus 
undertook  and  carried  through  the  whole  business,  without  consulting  him,  or 
letting  him  know  anything  of  it.  Novatus,  doubtless,  believed  that  such  a  con- 
gregation, distinct  from  the  mother  church,  liad  the  right  and  the  power  of 
electing  their  own  servants,  with  consent  of  the  presbyter  who  had  charge  of 
them.  But  Cyprian,  who  was  a  most  strenuous  defender  of  episcopal  riglits 
and  authority,  contended  that  nothing  whatever,  even  in  those  minor  Christian 
assemblies,  ought  to  be  undertaken  or  transacted  without  the  approbation  and 
consent  of  the  bishop ;  and  he  therefore  considered  Novatus  as  censurable  for 
recommending  to  his  church  the  choice  of  Felicissimus  for  deacon,  before  he 
had  been  approved  of  and  judged  worthy  of  a  deaconship  by  the  bishop. 
Perhaps  Novatus  intentionally  neglected  to  consult  the  bishop,  because  he 
knew  that  Cyprian  had  a  dislike  to  the  man.  The  church  over  which  ISovatus 
presided,  worshipped  on  a  certain  hill  in  Carthage.  This,  I  think,  Cyprian  in- 
timates, (Epist.  xxxviii.  p.  51.)  where  he  &ays  of  Felicissimus :  Comminatus  est 

fratribus  nostris potentatu  improbo  et  terrore  violento,  quod  secum  in  morde 

non  communicarent,  qui  nobis   obtemperarc  voluissent.     Many   copies,  both 


48  Century  Ill—Section  13. 

[p.  500.]  manuscript  and  printed,  here  read,  in  morte.  But  this  reading^  is  des- 
titute of  meaning;  and  Felicissimus  would  iiave  been  a  fool  to  have  threat- 
ened such  a  thing  to  his  adversaries,  when  it  would  have  frightened  nobody. 
The  learned  have  therefore  long  considered  the  true  reading  to  be,  in  monte. 
And  this  reading  is  much  confirmed  by  the  appelhition  of  (Montenses)  the  Hill 
People,  given  to  the  Novatians  at  Rome,  according  to  Epiphanius,  (in  Ancorato, 
c.  13.  Opp.  torn.  ii.  p.  18.)  They  were  probably  so  called,  because  they  con- 
sidered that  portion  of  the  Carthagenian  church,  which  worshipped  on  some 
hill  or  mountain  of  the  city,  to  be  the  only  true  church  of  Carthage.  Hence 
Felicissimus  threatened  the  friends  of  Cyprian  with  exclusion  from  communion 
in  the  Hill  Church :  which  was  unquestionably  the  church  in  which  Felicissi- 
mus officiated  as  deacon,  and,  of  course,  had  some  authority  ;  and,  as  this  was 
the  church  over  which  Novatus  presided,  it  must  be  clear,  that  I  am  correct  in 
stating,  that  Novatus  had  charge  of  a  small  congregation,  distinct  from  the 
mother  church,  which  assembled  on  some  hill  in  Carthage. 

If  we  may  give  credit  to  Cyprian  and  his  adherents,  there  were  few  worse 
men  among  the  Christians  of  that  age  than  Novatus.  Cyprian  says  of  him, 
(Epist.  xlix.  p.  63.)  :  Rerum  semper  cupidus,  avaritiae  inexplebiiis,  rapacitate 
furibundus,  arrogantia  et  stupore  superbi  tumoria  inflatus,  semper  istic  episco- 
pis  male  cognitus,  quasi  hasreticus  semper  et  perfidus  omnium  sacerdotum  voce 
damnatus,  curiosus  semper  ut  prodat,  ad  hoc  adulatur  ut  fallat,  nunquam  fidelis 
ut  diligat,  fax  et  ignis  ad  conflnnda  seditionis  incendia,  turbo  et  tempestas  ad 
fidei  facienda  naufragia,  hostis  quietis,  tranquillitatis  adversarius,  pads  inimicus. 
So  many  and  so  great  diseases  of  the  mind,  he  had  manifested  by  his  great 
enormities  and  crimes.  For,  not  to  mention  his  seditious  conduct  towards  his 
bishop,  he  was  a  thief,  a  robber,  a  parricide,  and  a  perpetrator  of  sacrilege. 
Spoliati  ab  illo  pupilli,  fraudatse  viduse,  pecuniae  ecclesise  denegatse  has  de  illo 

exigunt  poenas. Pater  etiam  ejus  in  vico  fame  mortuus,  et  ab  eo  in  morte 

postmodum  nee  sepultus.  Uterus  uxoris  calce  percussus,  et  abortione  proper- 
ante  in  parricidium  partus  exprcssus.  What  can  be  more  base  and  detestable 
than  such  a  man?  The  best  informed  ecclesiastical  historians  have  no  hesita- 
tion as  to  the  entire  truth  of  these  statements,  because  they  come  from  a  very 
holy  martyr,  in  whose  affirmation  implicit  confidence  must  be  placed.  And  far 
be  it  from  me,  to  accuse  the  holy  man  of  falsehood  or  intentional  misrepresen- 
tation. But  I  suppose,  candid  and  well-informed  men  will  readily  concede, 
that  a  martyr  might  commit  mistakes  and  errors ;  that  under  the  influence  of 
strong  passions  and  an  excited  imagination  he  might  exaggerate  in  some  things, 
and  extenuate  in  others.  And  therefore,  if  we  suppose  something  of  this  na- 
ture, in  the  present  case,  occurred  in  regard  to  the  otherwise  excellent  Cyprian^ 
we  shall  do  no  injury  to  his  reputation.  In  recounting  the  vices  of  Novatus 
he  is  manifestly  declamatory,  and  plays  the  orator ;  and  those  who  understand 
huma^i  nature,  know  that  we  are  never  more  liable  to  err,  than  in  describing 
the  character  of  other  men,  and  especially  of  our  enemies.  That  Novatus  was 
[p.  501.]  contentious,  prone  to  innovation,  and  also  factious,  I  can  readily 
admit;  but  the  good  Cyprian  could  sometimes  discover  faults  where  there  were 
none,  and  was  too  virulent  against  those  whom  he  regarded  as  hostile  to  his 


Novatus   of   Carthage.  49 

reputation  and  dignity.  To  express  my  own  opinion,  I  cannot  look  upon 
Novatus  a3  so  blacif  a  cliaracter  as  Cyprian  represents  liiin  ;  because  he  neittier 
soug'iit  nor  obtained  for  himself  any  great  advantages,  throughout  this  long  and 
vehement  contest.  He  allowed  others  to  be  created  bishops,  and  enjoy  t.ho 
fruits  and  rewards  of  the  dissension ;  but  for  himself,  he  was  contented  witii 
his  situation  and  the  rank  of  a  presbyter,  and  chose  rather  to  minister  than  to 
bear  rule.  This  indicates  his  moderation.  The  crimes,  with  wiiich  Cyprian 
charges  him,  were  doubtless  the  subject  of  common  talk,  and  were,  therefore, 
collected  from  common  fame;  but  it  is  observable,  that  iVol•a^^/s  was  never  con- 
victed of  them.  He  could  not,  indeed,  after  he  left  Africa,  be  summoned  to  a 
trial ;  but  Cyprian  might  have  substantiated  the  crimes  of  the  absent  man  by 
examining  the  witnesses,  and  have  legitimately  passed  sentence  on  him  if  found 
to  be  guilty.  But  it  is  manifest,  that  he  did  neither;  nor  does  he  let  fall  a 
single  word,  even  in  the  passages  wjiere  he  shows  the  most  anger,  from  which 
it  can  be  inferred,  that  Novatus  was  proved  guilty  of  the  crimes  which  common 
fame  charged  upon  him,  and  that  on  such  ground  he  had  been  deposed  from 
office  and  ejected  from  the  church.  It  is  therefore  no  rash  conjecture,  to  sup- 
pose that  the  truth  of  these  enormous  imputations  could  not  be  substantiated. 
Felicissimus  the  friend  of  Novatus,  Cyprian  condemned  and  excommunicated  : 
and  why  should  he  spare  Novatus,  if  he  knew  him  to  be  guilty  of  such  enor- 
mities 1 

But  let  us  pass  over  these  points,  which  it  is  absolutely  impossible  at  this 
day  to  clear  up,  because  no  writings  of  Novatus  have  reached  us;  and  let  us 
look  into  the  controversy,  of  which  Novatus  was  the  prime  cause  and  author. 
The  learned  are  agreed,  that  Novatus  v/as  the  original  cause  of  the  African 
disturbances.  And  this  is  explicitly  stated  by  Cyprian,  (  Epist.  xlix.  p.  63.)  : 
Idem  est  Novatus,  qui  apud  nos  primum  discordia)  et  schismatis  incendium 
eeminavit. — But  I  cannot  agree  with  those  who  think,  that  these  contests  and 
disturbances  commenced  in  the  absence  of  Cyprian,  and  in  the  midst  of  the 
persecution,  and  that,  before  the  Decian  persecution,  Novatus  had  never  plotted 
against  his  bishop.  We  have  testimony  to  the  contrary,  in  the  epistle  already 
cited,  and  proof  that  before  Cyprian's  retirement,  Novatus  was  hostile  to  him. 
Cyprian  clearly  discriminates  between  the  offences  of  Novatus  before  the  per- 
tecution,  and  those  during  the  persecution  ;  and  he  says,  that  Novatus,  before 
the  persecution,  had  alienated  brethren  from  the  bishop :  Qui  quosdam  istic  ex 
fratribus  ab  episcopo  segregavit,  (this  he  did  before  the  persecution  began ; 
next  follows  his  criminal  conduct  during  the  persecution;)  qui  in  ipsa  persecu- 
<sone  ad  evertendas  fratrura  mentes  alia  qua? dam  persequutio  nostris  fuit.  And 
who,  let  me  ask,  can  doubt,  that  a  controversy  had  arisen  between  Cyprian  and 
Novatus,  before  the  Decian  persecution,  when  he  hears  Cyprian  [p.  602.] 
himself  declaring,  that  he  should  have  arraigned  Novatus  before  the  tribunal 
of  bishops,  and  have  cast  him  out  of  the  church,  if  he  had  not  been  prevented 
by  the  emperor's  edict?  lie  says,  indeed,  that  the  crimes  of  Novatus,  and  not 
any  private  or  personal  offence,  had  caused  him  to  form  that  purpose.  But  of 
the  crimes  of  Novatus,  we  have  already  given  our  views ;  they  were  not  so 
clear  and  manifest  as  to  demand  public  animadversion.     Neither  does  Cyprian^ 

VOL.   II.  5 


50  Century  Ill—Section  14. 

as  we  have  already  seen,  disguise  the  fact,  that  the  enormity  of  hi3  evil  deed* 
was  augmented  by  some  offence  against  the  honor  and  right  of  his  bishop. 
What  it  was  that  set  tlie  presbyter  and  the  bishop  at  variance,  does  not  fully 
appear.  But  I  strongly  incline  to  believe,  that  Novatus^  conferring  the  office  of 
deacon  on  Felicissimu*",  witiiout  the  consent  and  approbation  of  Cyprian,  irri- 
tated the  feelings  of  the  bishop,  who  held  his  episcopal  dignity  in  the  highest 
estimation  ;  and  that  here  commenced  the  whole  sad  conflict.  I  am  aware, 
that  some  learned  men  suppose  that  Felicissimus  was  constituted  deacon  while 
Cyprian  was  absent,  and  they  censure  John  Pearson,  who  maintains,  (Annal. 
Cyprian,  5  20.  22.  p.  25.)  tliat  he  had  been  put  into  that  office,  before  the 
quarrel  began.  But  they  can  allege  nothing  in  support  of  their  opinion,  except 
the  question,  "  Who  consecrated  or  ordained  Felicissimus  ?"  What  bishop 
would  have  presumed  to  do  it,  if  Cyprian  had  been  at  home  !  See  Tillemonl^ 
(Memoires  pour  servir  a  THistoire  de  I'Eglise,  torn.  iv.  P.  I.  p.  393.)  To  this 
question,  I  answer:  iVom/us,  Mmse//",  consecrated  his  deacon;  and  he  thought 
this  to  be  lawful.  Those  Presbyters  who,  like  Novaius,  had  charge  of  separate 
churches,  enjoyed  many  prerogatives,  which  did  uot  belong  to  the  other  pres- 
bytei-s  who  were  connected  with  the  bishop.  But  Cyprian  deemed  this  to  be 
unlawful.  And  so  ho  intimates,  I  apprehend,  when  he  says,  that  (amhitione  Novali) 
through  the  ambition  of  Novatus,  the  man  (conslitutum  fuisse)  was  constituted 
deacon,  (se  non  permittente)  without  his  permission.  According  to  Cyprian's 
views,  Novatus  should  have  asked  leave  of  his  bisliop  to  initiate  his  deacon  ; 
but,  being  inflated  by  ambition,  and  presiding  over  a  church  situated  perhaps  in 
the  suburbs,  or  on  some  neighboring  hill,  he  supposed  the  permission  of  the 
bishop  not  necessary  to  the  transaction.     And  here  lay  his  chief  fault. 

(3)  See  Cyprian,  (Epist.  xlix.  p.  64.) :  Hanc  conscientiam  criminum  (Nova- 
tus) jam  pridem  timebat.  Propter  hoc  se  non  de  presbyterio  excitari  tantum 
(be  excluded  from  the  class  of  presbyters.)  sed  et  communicatione  prohiberi 
pro  eerto  tenebat.  (But  how  could  the  worthy  Cyprian  know  this,  and  here 
assume  power  to  judge  of  the  thoughts  of  another  ?)  Et  urgentibus  fratribus 
imminebat  eognitionis  dies,  quo  apud  nos  caussa  ejus  ageretur,  nisi  persecutio 
ante  venisset,  quam  iste  voto  quodam  evadendte  et  lucrandaj  damnationis  exci- 
piens,  (i.  e.  he  rejoiced  in  this  occurrence.  But  who  had  told  Cyprian  that 
fact?)  haec  omnia  commissit  et  miscuit ;  ut  qui  ejici  de  ecclesia  et  cxcludi  habe- 
[p.  603.]  bat,  judicium  sacerdotum  voluntaria  discessionc  prsecederat :  quasi 
evasisse  sit  poenam,  praevenisse  sententiam. — Many,  both  ancients  and  moderns^ 
have  understood  the  last  part  in  this  quotation,  as  referring  to  the  journey  of 
Novatus  to  Rome ;  and  they  suppose  Cyprian  intended  to  say,  that  Novatus 
escaped  the  sentence  impending  over  him,  by  his  flight.  But  in  this  they  are 
clearly  mistaken.  The  (voluntaria  discessio)  voluntary  departure,  of  which 
Cyprian  speaks,  was  a  withdrawal  from  the  church,  as  is  manifest  from  what 
precedes.  Novatus  withdrew  himself  from  the  bishop  and  the  church,  to  pre- 
vent being  excluded  by  the  priests. 

§  XIY.    The  Schism  of  Felicissimus  at  Carthage.     After  the  de- 
parture of  Cyprian,  and  so  long  as  the  African  magistrates  kept 


Schism  of  Fdicissimus.  5| 

up  a  vigorous  persecution  of  the  Christians,  these  movements 
were  dormant.  But  when  the  fury  of  the  persecution  gradually 
subsided,  and  Cyprian  began  to  prepare  for  returning  to  his  church, 
now  fast  recovering  its  former  tranquillity,  Novaius^  doubtless, 
fearing  that  the  returning  bishop  would  revive  the  prosecution 
which  he  had  commenced  before  his  flight,  deemed  it  necessary 
to  organize  a  party  which  should  obstruct  the  return  of  liis  ad- 
versary to  his  church,  and  thus  to  deprive  him  of  the  means  of 
annoyance  to  himself  (')  And,  therefore,  by  means  of  Felicissi- 
mus^  the  deacon  whom  he  had  ordained  against  the  pleasure  of 
the  bishop,  he  drew  off  a  portion  of  the  church  from  Cyprian  ; 
and,  particularly,  with  the  aid  of  one  Augendus^  he  resisted  the 
regulations  which  Cyprian  had  sanctioned,  in  reference  to  the 
poor.  To  his  party  belonged,  not  only  many  of  the  people,  but 
especially  five  presbyters,  who  had  long  indulged  animosity  to- 
wards Cyprian.{')  This  turbulent  faction  were  able  to  retard 
somewhat  the  return  of  Cyprian^  but  they  could  not  frustrate  it. 
Therefore,  after  a  short  delay,  which  prudence  suggested,  the 
bishop  returned  to  Carthage,  and  assembling  a  council,  princi- 
pally on  account  of  the  lapsed,  he  began  to  repress  the  rashness 
of  his  adversaries ;  and  he  excelled* Felicissiinus,  the  author  of 
the  sedition,  and  the  five  presbyters,  his  associates,  from  the 
church.  The  ejected  persons,  unawed  by  this  punishment,  set  up 
a  new  church  at  Carthage,  in  opposition  to  Cyprianh  congre- 
gation, and  placed  over  it,  as  bishop,  Fortunatus^  one  of  the  five 
presbyters,  whom  Cyprian  had  excommunicated. (^)  But  this 
company  had  more  courage  than  efficiency,  and  sinking  into  dis- 
cord, seems,  not  long  after,  to  have  become  extinct,  for  none  of 
the  ancients  make  mention  of  its  progress. 

(1)  Cijjprian  does  not  expressly  say  that  Novatus  induced  Felicissi-  [p.  504.] 
mus  to  organize  this  opposition  to  him;  but  this  is  inferred,  from  the  fact,  that 
he  throws  on  Novatus  all  the  blame  of  the  divisions  and  discords  in  the  church. 
He  says,  (Epist.  xlix.  p.  64.)  :  Circa  cseteros  autem  fratres  elaboramus,  quos  ab 
eo  (Novato)  circumventos  dolemus,  ut  veteratoris  perniciosum  latus  fugiant,  ut 
lethales  laqueos  sollicitantis  evadant,  ut  de  qua  pelli  ille  divinitus  meruit  eccle- 
siam  repetant :  quos  quidem,  Domino  adjuvante,  per  ejus  misericordiam  regrcdi 
posse  confidimus.  In  the  same  Epistle,  he  calls  Fdicissimus  (satcllitem  Novalx) 
a  satellite  of  Novatus;  which  pretty  distinctly  implies  tiiat  Novatus  used  Fcli- 
cissimus  as  his  agent  or  instrument  for  disturbing  the  peace  of  the  Church,  and 
setting  it  at  variance  with  its  bishop.     But,  as  I  observed  at  the  first,  many 


52  Century  III. — Section  14. 

things  relating  to  this  contest  arc  unknown  to  us;  and  Cyprian  himself  some- 
times speaks,  as  if  Felicissimus  did  not  act  from  the  instigation  of  another, 
but  from  the  impulse  of  his  own  mind.  In  his  38th  Epistle,  (p.  51.)  in  which 
he  descants  warmly  on  the  criminality  of  Felicissimus,  he  makes  no  mention 
whatever  of  Novalus,  but  represents  Felicissimus  as  the  cause  of  all  the  evil. 
He  says:  Nee  loci  mei  honoremotus,  nee  vestraauctoritateet  praesentia  fractus, 
insi'mctu  S'uo  quietem  fratrum  turbans  proripuit  se  cum  plurimis,  Ducem  se  fac- 
tionis  ct  seditionis  principem  temerario  furore  contestans.  The  affairs  of  Nova- 
ius  and  Felicissimus  were  undoubtedly  connected;  and  that  each  of  them  aided 
the  other,  is  beyond  controversy :  yet  the  two  movements  seem  to  have  stood 
disconnected,  In  some  respect,  which  we  are  unable  even  to  conjecture.  In  the 
progress  of  the  controversy,  this  disconnexion  becomes  manifest.  For  Nova- 
tus  joined  the  followers  of  Novatian,  from  whom  Felicissimus  kept  aloof. 
Novatus  set  up  one  Maximus  as  a  bishop  at  Carthage,  and  Felicissimus  set  up 
another,  in  the  person  of  Forlunatus.  This  shows,  tliat  the  two  sects  had 
nothing  in  common  at  that  time,  except  their  hatred  of  Cyprian.  In  the  com- 
mencement of  the  controversy,  however,  their  connexion  seems  to  have  been 
more  intimate. 

(2)  Felicissimus,  as  a  man,  was  not  much  better  than  his  presbyter  Novatus. 
For  Cyprian  charges  him  not  only  with /m«c? and  7'apine,'b\it  also  with  adultery : 
Ad  fraudes  ejus  et  rapinas,  quas  dilucida  veritate  cogno\imus,  adulterium  etiam 
crimen  accedit,  quod  fratres  nostri  graves  viri  deprehendisse  se  nunciaverunt  et 
probaturos  se  asseverarunt.  This  occurs  in  Epistle  38.  (p.  51.):  and  in  another 
Epistle,  (55.  p.  79.)  he  is  branded  with  marks  of  still  greater  infamy;  for  he  is 
pronounced.  Pecuniae  commissae  sibi  fraudator,  stuprator  virginum,  matrimo- 
niorum  multorum  depopulator  atque  corruptor.  It  was  not  therefore  one  act  of 
adultery,  but  many,  that  he  committed;  and  not  satisfied  with  that  form  oi 
wickedness,  he  violated  the  chastity  of  many  virgins.  I  confess,  I  must  here 
[p.  505.]  doubt  a  little,  and  must  suspect  that  Cyprian,  in  the  ardor  of  his  in- 
dignation, expressed  more  than  he  intended.  But  let  us  dismiss  our  suspicions, 
and  listen  to  the  martyr.  This  debauchee,  then,  who  was  unworthy  of  the  name 
of  a  man,  stirred  up  the  sad  conflict,  while  Cyprian  was  absent.  Cyprian  in 
his  exile  had  sent  four  deputies  to  Carthage,  the  two  bishops  Caldonius  and 
Herculanus,  and  two  very  distinguished  confessors,  the  priests  Rogalianus  and 
Numidicus,  who,  in  the  bishop's  name  and  stead,  should  distribute  among  the 
poor  the  moneys  due  to  them,  and  carefully  examine  the  lives  and  the  condition 
of  those  who  were  living  on  the  bounties  of  the  church,  in  order  to  advance  the 
most  worthy  of  them  to  sacred  functions.  I  will  give  the  substance  of  this 
commission  in  the  holy  man's  own  words;  (Epist.  xxxviii.  p.  51.  ed  Baluz. 
which  is  the  edition  I  always  quote ;)  addressing  the  deputies,  he  says :  Cum- 
que  ego  vos  pro  me  vicarios  miserim,  ut  expungeretis  necessitates  fratrum  nos- 
trorum  sumptibus  (i.  e.  with  the  money  collected  by  the  church  for  the  poor,) 
si  qui  etiam  vellent  suas  artes  exercere,  additamento,  quantum  satis  esset,  desi- 
deria  eorum  juvaretis:  simul  etiam  et  aetateseorum  et  conditiones  et  merita 
discerneretis,  ut  jam  nunc  ego,  cui  cura  incumbit,  omnes  optime  nossem  et 
dignos  quoque  et  humiles  et  mites  ad  ecclesiasticae  adrainistrationis  ofRcia  pro- 


Schism  of  FcUcismmus.  53 

moverera.  It  appears  then — First :  Thut  Cyprian  intended,  by  these  deputies, 
necessitates  expungi  fratrum  sumptihus ;  i.  e.  to  relieve  the  wants  of  the  brethren 
from  the  funds  of  the  church.  For  expungere  necessitates,  is  simply  to  satisfy  and 
remove  the  wants  of  the  poor. — Secondly ;  That  he  wished  those  among  the 
poor,  who  were  disposed  to  labor  at  their  trades,  to  be  supplied  with  money 
from  the  church  treasury  suilieient  for  purchasing  the  necessary  tools  and 
moans  for  business. — Tiiirdly :  That  he  wished  tliose  among  the  poor,  who 
were  fit  for  deacons  and  other  sacred  functions,  to  be  removed  from  the  class  of 
the  poor  who  were  supported  by  the  church,  in  order  to  their  admission  to  the 
class  of  officers  of  the  church;  in  short,  he  wished  the  fund  for  the  poor  to  be 
relieved  of  a  part  of  its  burden.  All  these  measures  were  honorable,  pious,  and 
useful.  But  Felicissimus  resisted  them.  He  would  not  have  (necessitates  ex- 
pungi,)  the  wants  of  the  brethren  relieved,  nor  have  such  an  examination  of  the 
indigent  as  the  bishop  directed.  Snys  Cyprian:  Intercessit,  ne  quis  posset 
expungi,  (being  a  deacon,  he  held  the  church  funds,  and  therefore  was  able  to 
prevent  the  giving  of  relief  to  the  embarrassed;  he  refused  to  pay  over  to  the 
bishop's  deputies  the  moneys  in  his  hands:)  neve  ea,  quae  desideraverara,  pos- 
sent  diligenti  examinatione  discerni.  The  necessities  of  many  were  indeed  re- 
lieved; that  is,  as  Cyprian  soon  after  states,  through  the  hands  of  the  deputies, 
(stipendia  episcopo  dispensante  percipiebant,)  they  received  the  stipends  which 
the  bishop  dispensed.  For  Felicissimus  had  not  the  whole  treasury  in  his 
hands,  but  only  that  of  the  Hill  Ciiurch,  of  which  he  was  deacon.  But  as  he 
held  out  severe  threats  against  those  who  did  not  reject  the  relief  [p.  506.] 
profferred  by  Cyprian^s  deputies,  many  abstained  from  it,  and  would  not  avail 
themselves  of  the  kind  offers  of  the  deputies.  And  these,  undoubtedly,  Feli- 
cissimus relieved  from  the  funds  in  his  hands.  Comminatus  est  fratribus  nostris, 
qui  primi  expungi  accesserant  potentatu  improbo  et  terrore  violento,  quod  se- 
cum  in  monte  non  coramunicarent,  qui  nobis  obtemperare  noluissent;  i.  e.  he 
threatened,  that  he  and  the  Hill  Church,  of  which  he  was  deacon,  would  not 
hold  those  as  brethren,  who,  being  in  want,  should  make  application  to  the 
bishop's  deputies. — Here  we  have  the  crime  of  Felicissimus.  But  the  cause  or 
pretext  for  the  criminal  act,  Cyprian  does  not  mention;  nor  has  any  one,  so  far 
as  I  know,  attempted  its  investigation.  This,  therefore,  is  a  problem  for  us  to 
solve  :  and  it  is  not  so  abstruce,  as  to  require  great  ingenuity  for  its  solution. 
Felicissimus,  as  we  have  seen,  was  a  deacon ;  and  therefore  to  him  belonged 
the  care  of  the  poor,  and  the  administration  of  the  treasury  of  the  church. 
Now  the  authority  and  dignity  of  deacons,  were  far  greater  in  the  African  church 
than  in  the  other  churches,  as  might  be  shown  from  various  testimonies.  They, 
equally  with  the  presbyters,  had  a  seat  in  the  councils,  as  appears  from  Cyprian's 
65th  Epistle,  and  other  places.  They  were  dispatched  to  the  prisons,  to  look 
after  the  martyrs  and  confessors,  and  be  thoir  counsellors,  as  before  shown.  In 
the  absence  of  the  presbyters,  they  could  receive  the  confessions  of  offenders, 
and  absolve  the  penitent.  This  Cyprian  admits,  in  his  13th  Epistle,  where  ho 
allows  the  lapsed  to  make  their  confession  to  the  deacons.  They  also  had 
some  share  in  the  government  of  the  church.  Therefore  Felicissimjis,  inllated 
with  the  pride  of  office,  maintained,  that  the  distribution  of  money  to  the  poor 


54  Century  III. — Section    14. 

and  other  matters,  should  have  been  assigned  by  the  bishop  to  himself  and  the 
other  deacons,  and  not  to  deputies  commissioned  by  him;  and  he  complained, 
that  by  his  commission,  Cyprian  trespassed  on  the  rights  of  the  order  of  dea- 
cons. This  solution  will  at  once  suggest  itself  to  a  person  familiar  with  Chris- 
tian antiquities,  and  duly  considering  the  case.  But,  perhaps,  this  daring  man 
meditated  something  still  more  criminal.  He  contended,  perhaps,  that  by  forsak- 
ing his  church  in  the  time  of  persecution,  and  seeking  his  own  safety  by  flight, 
Cyprian  forfeited  his  dignity,  and  deprived  himself  of  the  honors  and  the  rights 
pertaining  to  a  bishop:  and  therefore,  that  his  orders,  communicated  through 
his  deputies,  were  to  be  disregarded,  as  being  those  of  a  man  no  longer  pos- 
sessing authority  ;  and  that  another  head  must  be  placed  over  the  church. 
And  it  is  well  known,  that  others,  likewise,  called  in  question  the  prudence  of 
Cyprian,  in  withdrawing  from  his  church  when  conflicting  with  its  enemies. 

Cyprian,  on  being  informed  of  the  criminal  conduct  of  Felicissimus,  imme- 
diately addressed  to  his  legates  a  letter  which  has  come  down  to  us,  ordering 
the  man  to  be  ejected  from  the  church.  The  legates  obeyed  their  instructions, 
without  delay,  and  declared  unworthy  of  communion  in  the  sacred  rites,  not 
on]y  Feiicissi77ius,  the  author  of -the  disturbance,  but  also  one  Aiigendus,  hh 
associate,  concerning  whom  we  have  no  knowledge,  and  some  others  of  both 
sexes.  This  appears  from  a  letter  of  the  legates,  among  the  Epistles  of 
[p.  507.]  Cyprian,  No.  xxxix.  This  act  certainly  betokens  a  man  of  a  vehe- 
ment and  hasty  temper,  rather  than  of  a  discreet  and  prudent  mind ;  and  it  is 
one  of  the  things  which,  in  my  judgment,  show  that  Cyprian  was  more  stu- 
dious of  his  own  honor,  than  of  the  public  good.  In  the  first  place,  he  assumed 
the  office  of  a  judge,  in  his  own  cause,  contrary  to  the  rules  of  justice;  for  the 
contest  was  respecting  the  extent  of  the  bishop's  rights,  and  those  of  the  order 
of  deacons.  And  that  Felicissimus  was  not  destitute  of  arguments,  by  which 
to  defend  his  conduct,  is  sufficiently  manifest  from  the  fact,  that  Cyprian  most 
carefully  conceals  from  us  the  cause  which  produced  the  controversy.  For  if 
the  cause  alleged  by  his  adversary  for  his  bold  resistance  to  the  bishop,  had 
been  manifestly  unjust,  or  destitute  of  all  plausibility,  Cyprian  certainly  would 
not  have  passed  silently  over  it,  but  would  have  assailed  it  in  his  usually  elo- 
quent and  severe  manner. — In  the  next  place,  Cyprian,  by  his  deputies, 
expelled  from  the  church  one  of  its  ministers  or  deacons,  unheard  and  uncon- 
victed of  crime,  by  his  sole  authority,  and  without  consulting  the  people;  which 
ft  bishop  had  by  no  means  a  right  to  do.  He  therefore  went  far  beyond  the 
limits  of  his  power.  He  mentions,  indeed,  (in  the  Epistle  before  cited,)  three 
gi'ounds  for  his  sentence:  the  threats  of  Felicissimus,  his  frauds  and  rapines, 
and  his  adultery.  But,  as  Cyprian  himself  tacitly  admits,  Felicissimus  liad 
never  carried  his  threats  into  execution  ;  the  frauds  and  rapines  of  which 
the  bishop  says  he  had  the  most  certain  knowledge  (se  dilucida  teriiaie 
cognovisse,)  had  not  been  brought  forward  and  spread  out  before  the  people  ; 
and  as  to  the  adultery,  as  he  again  admits,  it  had  never  been  substantiated  by 
proof.  It  was  therefore  unavoidable,  that  this  rash  decision  should  produce 
still  greater  dissensions.  Among  the  Carthagenian  presbyters,  there  were /re, 
who  had  dissented  and  opposed  the  elevation  of  Cyprian  to  the  episcopate. 


Schism  of  Felicissimus.  55 

These  had  previously  manifested,  by  various  signs,  an  aversion  to  him ;  and 
now  they  openly  forsook  him,  and  went  with  the  party  of  Felirissimus ;  and 
undoubtedly,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaininf,^  the  appointment  of  another  bi-hop 
in  his  plaee.  Some  learned  men  think  Novalus  was  one  of  the  fLce ;  to  whieh 
opinion  we  shall  soon  give  attention.  These  presbyters,  in  order  to  accomplish 
their  object  more  readily,  promised  to  the  lapsed,  towards  whom  Cyprian  had 
been  somewhat  severe,  that  if  they  would  separate  themselves  from  the  bishop, 
they  should  be  restored  to  the  fellowship  of  the  church  without  any  penance 
whatever.     Says  Ci/prian,  (Epist.  xl.  p.  52.) :  Conjurationis  suae  memores,  et 

anliqua  ilhi  contra  episcopatum  meum venena  retinentes,instaurant  vetcreni 

contra  nos  impugnationem  suam.  -  -  -  Nunc  se  ad  lapsorum  perniciem  venenata 
sua  deceptione  verterunt,  ut  a3gros  et  saucios,  et  ad  caplenda  fortiora  con^ilia 
per  calamitatem  ruinaj  suae  minus  idoneos,  et  minus  solidos,  a  medela  vulnerls 
6ui  avocent,  et  intermissis  precibus  et  orationibus,  quibus  Dominus  longa  et 
continua  satisfactione  plaeandus  est,  ad  exitiosam  temeritatem  mendacio  cap- 
tiosas  pads  invitent.    Most  bitterly  does  this  holy  man  complain  of  the  rashness 
of  the  five  presbyters,  in  this  Epistle  addressed  to  the  Christian  people.     But 
among  his  complaints  and  accusations,  there  are  some  which  are  extravagant, 
and  would  better  become  an  orator  laboring  to  excite  odium  against  [p.  5D8.] 
&  criminal,  than  a  Christian  bishop.     One  thing  of  this  character,  as  it  strikes 
me,  is  his  comparing  the  five  presbyters  to  the  five  principal  men  of  Carthagey 
who  were  joined  with  the  magistrates  for  suppressing  and  exterminating  the 
Christians.     Quinque  isti  presbyteri  nihil  aliud  sunt,  quam  quinque  primores 
illi,  qui  edicto  nuper  magistratibus  fuerunt  copulati,  ut  fidem  nostram  subrue- 
rent,  ut  grncilia  fratrum  corda  ad  lethales  laqueos  prcevaricatione  veritatis  aver- 
terent.     In  searching  for  the  import  of  this  passage,  learned  men  have  labored 
wonderfully.  But  it  manifestly  refers  to  the  five  principal  citizens,  whom  Decius, 
in  his  edict,  had  coupled  with  the  magistrates,  for  the  more  sure  accomplish- 
ment of  his  purpose  of  exterminating  Christianity.     By  this  formidable  schism, 
the  return  of  Cyprian  to  his  diocese  was,  for  a  time,  retarded;  yet,  very  soon, 
casting  away  all  fear,  he  returned,  and  by  his  presence  put  an  end  to  the  strife. 
It  now  remains  for  us  to  inquire,  whether  the  famous  Noialus,  whom  Cij- 
prian  terms  the  standard-bearer  of  all  the  Cartiiagenian  tumults,  was  one  of 
those  five  presbyters  who  joined  the  party  of  Felicissijnus?     The  learned,  with 
great  unanimity,  affirm  it:  one  only,  so  tar  as  I  know,  denies  it;  namely,  John 
Pearson,  in  his  Annales  Cypriancae  ;  and  he  offers  no  proof  of  his  opinion.     It 
Novalus  were  one  of  these  presbyters,  the  cause  of  his  hatred,  and  of  tiie  se- 
dition against  Cyprian,  would  be  manifest.    But,  all  things  considered,  I  appre- 
liend  Pearson  was  right,  and  that  Novalus  is  not  to  be  numbered  among  those 
adversaries  of  Cyprian,     In  the  first  place,  it  has  been  already  shown,  clearly, 
that  Novalus  was  at  enmity  with  Cyprian  some  time  before  Felicissimus  at- 
tempted to  make  disturbances  in  the  church  at  Carthage;  and  that  Chjtrian  was 
prevented  from  bringing  him  to  trial,  and  ejecting  him  from  the  cliurcl),  solely 
by  the  sudden  outbreak  of  the  Decian  persecution,  which  obliged  Cyprian  to  go 
into  retirement.     But  those  five  presbyters  did  not  withdraw  themselves  from 
Cyprian,  until  after  the  sedition  excited  by  Felicissimus.   Before  that  time,  they 


56  Century  III. — Section  14. 

had  dissembled  their  alienation,  and  tlie  bishop  hnd  no  controversy  with  them. 
In  the  next  place,  it  appears,  from  the  49lh  Epistle  of  Cyprian,  (p.  64.)  that 
sentence  was  never  pronounced  by  the  council  of  Carthage  against  Novalus,  but 
tliat  he  prevented  the  sentence  by  his  flight.  Says  tiie  bishop:  Ejici  de  ecclesia 
et  exdudi  habebat.  -  -  Quasi  evasisse  sit  poenam,  praivenisse  sententiam.  And 
he  afterwards  says :  He  merited  cxpulbiun  from  the  church,  (eum  meruisse  de 
ecclesia  pelli.)  and  not  tliat  he  wan  expelled.  In  fact,  Novaiiis,  to  prevent  being 
condemned,  witluirew  himself  from  the  church  of  Carthage,  and  from  Cyprian's 
jurisdiction.  But  those  five  presbyters,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  appeared  be- 
fore the  council  of  bishops  whicii  Cyprian  assembled  after  his  return,  made  their 
defence,  and,  by  a  decree  of  the  council,  were  excluded  from  the  communion  of 
[p.  509.]  the  church.  I  am  aware  that  Cyprian  says,  (Epist.  xlix.  p.  63.)  that 
Novalus  was  condemned  by  the  voice  of  all  the  priests,  (perjidus  ovinium  tSacer- 
datum  voce  damnalus.)  And  hence  the  learned  have  inferred,  that  he  was  con- 
demned in  the  council,  in  conjunction  with  the  other  presbyters,  the  enemies  of 
Cyprian.  But  the  words  may  very  properly  be  understood  of  the  private  con- 
demnation of  individuals ;  and  they  undoubtedly  prove,  that  all  the  teachers  of 
the  church  disapproved  of  his  temerity  and  improbity.  Besides,  unless  I  am 
wholly  deceived,  Novalus  had  already  reached  Rome,  and  joined  the  partizan» 
of  Novaliaji,  when  Cyprian,  after  his  return,  instituted  a  process  against  the 
faction  of  Felicissimiis  and  the  five  presbyters.  The  whole  history  will  become 
disjointed,  and  be  very  difficult  to  arrange,  unless  we  take  this  to  be  certain. 
And  when  Cyprian  says,  explicitly,  that  Novalv?  (sententiam  prccvenisse)  pre- 
vented sentence  being  passed  by  retiring;  he  clearly  intimates  that  Novalus  had 
gone  away,  and  was  residing  at  Rome,  before  Cyprian  returned  to  his  church. — 
Lastly,  omitting  other  things  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  it  is  certain,  that  although 
Novalus  aided  Felicissimus,  and  was  favorable  to  his  cause  while  in  Africa,  yet, 
he  did  not  adhere  to  his  party  at  Rome,  but  joined  a  very  different  one,  namely, 
that  of  Novalian.  Neither  did  he  recognize  the  bishop,  Forlunatus,  whom  the 
faction  of  Felicissimus  had  set  up  in  opposition  to  Cyprian  ;  but  he  established 
another  bishop  at  Carthage,  namely,  Maximus,  one  of  the  Novatian  party. 

(3)  On  the  subsidence  of  the  Decian  persecution,  Cyprian  returned  to  Car- 
thage, and  immediately  summoned  a  council  of  bishops,  to  settle  the  controversy 
respecting  the  lapsed,  and  to  try  the  cause  of  Fe.licissimus  and  the  presbyters 
associated  with  him.  It  were  much  to  be  wished  that  the  Acts  of  this  council, 
or  at  least,  the  epistle  of  Cyprian  and  the  African  bishops  concerning  it,  of 
which  Cyprian  makes  mention,  (Epist.  xlii.  p.  57.)  had  come  down  to  us.  But 
they  are  all  lost,  and  we  have  to  form  our  judgment  of  the  \vhole  affair,  from  a 
few  words  of  Cyprian.  From  these  it  appears,  Jirst,  that  Felicissiinus  and  the 
five  presbyters  were  present  and  had  a  hearing  before  the  council.  Cyprian^ 
writing  to  Cornelius,  bishop  of  Rome,  says,  (Epist.  xlii.  p.  57.):  Quantum  vero 
hie  ad  presbyterorum  quorundam  et  Felicissimi  caussam  pertinet,  quid  hie  ac- 
tum sit,  ut  scire  posses,  litteras  ad  te  collegae  nostri  (the  assembled  bishops) 
raanu  sua  subscriptas  miserunt,  qui,  audilis  eis,  quid  senserint  et  quid  pronun- 
ciaverint,  ex  eorum  litteris  disces.  Secondly,  from  another  of  his  Epistles  to 
the  same  Cornelius,  (Epist.  Iv.  p.  87,  &c.)  it  appears,  that  not  only  the  bishops 


Schism  of  Felicissimus.  57 

of  the  African  province,  but  also  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  and  not  in  a  small 
but  in  a  largo  number,  were  present  in  the  convention.  Si  coruni,  qui  do  illis 
priore  anno  judicavcrunt,  nuraerus  cum  presbyteris  et  diaconis  coniputetur,  plu- 
restunc  aftuerunt  judicio  et  cognitioni,  quam  sunt  iidem  isti,  qui  cum  Furtinuito 
(the  bishop  set  up  by  the  factious  in  opposition  to  Cyprian,)  nunc  videntur 
esse  conjuucti.  From  the  same  Epistle,  it  appears  that  all  of  them  were  eject- 
ed from  tlie  church  by  the  united  suffrage  of  the  bishops;  yet  not  [p,  510.] 
without  the  prospect  of  a  pardon  of  their  offences,  provided  they  would  reform. 
Says  Cyprian,  (p.  88.) :  Nee  ecclesia  istic  cuiquam  elauditur,  nee  episcopus 
alicui  denegatur.  Patientia  et  facilitas  et  humanitas  nostra  venientibus  pracsto 
est.  Opto  omnes  in  ecclesiam  regredi.  Neither  does  Cyprian  omit  to  mention 
the  offences,  which  called  fortii  tliis  sentence ;  but,  to  my  astonishment,  he  gives 
most  prominence  to  that  one,  which  is  the  most  excusable,  and  was  never  num- 
bered among  the  capital  crimes  which  exclude  a  man  from  the  church;  namely, 
compassion  for  the  lapsed,  and  defence  of  the  Certificates  of  Peace  heretofore 
mentioned.  Let  us  hear  the  eloquent  man's  own  words:  Taceo  itaque  de  frau- 
dibus  ecclesiae  fiictis,  (i.  e.  the  interception  and  misapplication  of  the  money  of 
the  church,)  Conjurationes  et  adulteria  et  varia  delictorum  genera  praetereo, 
(These  the  good  man  considers  as  minor  offences,  and  as  not  so  much  against 
God,  as  against  men  and  the  bishop.  But  now  comes  the  huge  crime  against 
God  him.self,  and  for  which  alone  they  were  deemed  worthy  of  punishment.) 
Unum  illud,  in  quo  non  mea,  nee  hominum,  sedDei  caussa  est,  de  eorum  facinore 
non  puto  esse  reticendum,  quod  a  primo  statim  persecutionis  die  -  -  communkare 
cum  lapsis,  et  poeniieniiae  agendas  intercedere  non  destiterunt:  i.  e.  they  wished 
those,  who  brought  Certificates  of  Peace  from  martyrs,  to  be  received  again  by 
the  church.  In  magnifying  this  crime,  he  pours  forth  all  his  eloquence,  and 
consumes  a  large  part  of  his  Epistle,  as  if  nothing  could  be  more  atrocious  and 
offensive  to  God,  Now  I  suppose,  that  an  adulterer,  a  sacrilegious  man,  an 
enemy  of  the  public  peace,  a  plunderer  of  the  funds  devoted  to  the  poor,  is  a 
far  greater  sinner,  than  the  man  who,  being  of  a  mild  temperament  and  aware 
of  human  frailty,  shows  himself  kind  and  lenient  towards  those,  who  aposta- 
tised from  Christ  through  fear  of  death,  and  themselves  abhorred  the  crime. 
But  to  tell  the  truth,  it  was  neither  this  fliult,  nor  the  bulk  of  the  others,  which 
oast  Felicissimus  and  his  associates  out  of  the  church;  but  (as  the  whole  Epistle 
ehows,)  it  was  this  single  one,  that  Felicissimus  dared  to  oppose  the  mandates  of 
the  bishop,  and  to  raise  up  a  party  against  him.  And  that  excessive  lenity  to- 
wards the  lapsed,  was  so  great  and  heinous  a  crime,  in  the  view  of  Cyprian,  be- 
cause it  was  not  only  contrary  to  his  judgment  in  the  matter,  but  also  weaken- 
ed his  authority.  We  shall  see,  in  another  place,  with  what  zeal  this  holy  man 
labored  to  defend  and  exalt  the  episcopal  dignity,  at  the  expense  of  the  people's 
riglits. — In  what  way  the  accused  conducted  their  defence,  or  with  what  argu- 
ments they  justified  their  conduct,  Cyprian  has  no  where  informed  us.  We 
should  have  been  able  to  judge  much  better  of  the  merits  of  this  controversy, 
if  some  of  those  arguments  had  reached  us.  I  am  very  confident  that  thoy 
accused  Cyprian  of  thirsting  for  power  and  lordship;  and  that  they  urged  tho 
rights   of  the  presbyters,  the  deacons,  and  the  people.     Felicissimus  and  the 


58  Century  Ill.—Sectioji  14. 

presbyters,  when  condemned  by  the  council,  were  not  disheartened  by  the 
[p.  511.]  contumely,  but  sought  to  estabhsh  a  new  congregation  at  Carthage, 
separated  from  Cypriaiis  church.  And  over  their  flock,  they  made  one  Forlu- 
natus  bishop,  obtaining  consecration  for  him  from  five  bishops  who  are  named 
and  severely  castigated  by  Cyprian,  (Epist.  Iv.  p.  82.)  And  thus  there  were 
three  bishops  at  Carthage,  at  one  and  the  same  time ;  namely,  Cyprian,  whom 
the  greater  part  of  the  people  followed,  Maximus,  set  up  by  the  legates 
of  Novatian  from  Rome,  and  ForLunalas,  whom  the  faction  of  Felicissimus 
had  created.  This  last  party,  in  order  to  strengthen  their  new  chinch,  sent 
Felicissimus  with  quite  a  number  of  delegates  to  Rome,  to  endeavor  to 
bring  the  Romish  bishop  Cornslius  to  espouse  their  cause,  and  renounce  the 
support  of  Cyprian.  Cornelius  was  a  little  perplexed,  being  terrified  by  the 
threats  of  the  legates,  and  stumbled  by  their  false  statements.  For  they  threat- 
ened to  expose  (lurpia  mulia  ac  probrosa)  many  base  and  reproachful  things,  if 
he  refused  to  receive  the  letter  they  had  brought  for  him,  {Cyprian,  Epist.  Iv. 
p.  80.) ;  and  they  asserted,  that  iwenly-five  African  bisJiops  attended  the  conse- 
cration of  Forlunalus.  Cyprian  contends,  that  this  was  a  gross  falsehood;  and 
I  believe,  he  was  correct.  And  yet  he  seems  to  admit,  that  there  were  more 
ihtmjive  bishops  present  on  that  occasion;  bad  ones,  however,  eitiier  lapsed,  or 
heretical.  Si  nomina  (of  the  five-and-twenty  bishops)  ab  eis  quaereres,  non 
haberent  vel  quos  falso  nominarent.  Tanta  apud  eos  etiam  malorum  (episcopo- 
rum,  undoubtedly;  for  he  is  speaking  of  bishops,)  penuria  est,  ut  ad  illos  nee  de 
gacrificatis,  nee  de  haereticis  viginti  quinque  (episcopi)  colligi  possint.  In  the 
assembly,  therefore,  besides  the  Jive  who  consecrated  Felicissimus,  there  were 
several  other  bishops,  but  they  were  either  sacrijicers  who,  of  course,  must  have 
been  deposed,  or  they  were,  in  Cyprian's  estimation,  heretics.  Cornelius  as- 
sumed courage,  his  first  fears  subsiding,  and  rejecting  the  overtures  of  Felicis- 
simus, he  remained  friendly  to  Cyprian.  And  this  was  necessary,  for  his  own 
sake;  for  he  was  hard  pressed  by  the  faction  of  Novatian,  which  also  assailed 
Cyprian,  and  inclined  towards  the  party  of  Felicissimus.  What  Cornelius 
would  have  done,  had  he  been  free  and  not  in  need  of  Cyprian^s  friendship,  is 
Another  question,  and  we  of^er  no  conjectures  about  it.  What  occured  after 
this, — whether  Foriunalus  had  any  successor,  or  whether  those  who  separated 
from  Cyprian,  returned  again  to  the  church, — no  ancient  writer  has  informed 
us.     Perhaps,  this  whole  taction  became  amalgamated  with  the  Novatians. 

He  who  shall  impartially  examine  this  controversy,  will  perhaps  admit,  that 
it  may  be  pronounced  the  last  struggle  of  expiring  liberty,  in  the  African 
church,  against  episcopal  domination.  Cyprian,  although  he  frequently  speaks 
modestly  enough  of  himself,  and  respectfully  enough  of  the  martyrs  and  con- 
fessors, the  rights  of  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  and  the  authority  of  the  peo- 
pie,  yet  wished  to  concentrate  all  power  in  his  own  hands,  and,  subverting  the 
ancient  form  of  government,  to  subject  the  whole  church  to  the  absolute  au- 
[p.  512.]  thority  and  good  pleasure  of  the  bishop.  This  was  the  source  of  all 
these  conflicts.  The  confessors,  the  presbyters,  the  deacons,  and  the  people, 
made  a  partial  resistance ;  but  the  fortitude  and  perseverance  of  Cyprian  finally 
triumphed.  No  one  will  approve  of  every  thing  done  by  his  antagonists;  yet  that 


The  Novatlan  Schism.  59 

they  contended  for  the  rights  of  the  clerg'y  and  people,  in  opposition  to  a 
bishop  affecting  to  have  absolute  dominion  over  them,  is  phiecd  beyond  all  eon- 
troveisy  by  tiie  scanty  and  obscure  documents  which  iiave  come  down  to  us. 

§  XV.  The  Schism  of  Novatiaii  at  Rome.  Before  the  return  of 
Cyprian  from  exile,  Novaius,  dreading  the  severity  of  the  bishop, 
had  retired  to  Rome  ;  where  discord  and  strife  were  no  less  pre- 
valent than  at  Carthage.  N'ovatian,  one  of  the  Roman  presbyters, 
a  learned,  eloquent,  and  grave  man,  but  rigid  and  austere,  denied 
that  any  persons  falling  into  the  grosser  sins,  and  especially  the 
persons  who  had  forsaken  Christ  in  the  Decian  persecution,  were 
to  be  received  again  to  the  church;  and,  perceiving  that  Cor- 
nelius, a  man  held  in  the  highest  estimation  among  the  Romish 
presbyters,  and  also  some  others,  differed  from  him  on  this  sub- 
ject, he  made  the  most  strenuous  opposition  to  the  election  of 
Cornelius  to  succeed  Fabian,  as  bishop  of  Rome.(')  From  hatred, 
perhaps,  of  Cyprian,  who  was  much  attached  to  Cornelius,  No- 
vaius  became  an  associate  and  co-adjutor  of  Novatian.  Neverthe- 
less, Cornelius  was  elected  bishop,  and  Novatian  withdrew  from 
communion  with  him,  and  was  followed,  at  the  instigation  of  his 
friend,  Novatus,  by  five  presbyters,  several  of  the  confessors,  and 
a  portion  of  the  people.(")  Both  parties,  by  their  letters,  appealed 
to  Cypriani ;  and  he,  after  dispatching  legates  to  Rome,  and  care- 
fully examining  the  case,  gave  his  decision  in  favor  of  Cornelius. 
And,  on  the  other  hand,  Cornelius  followed  the  example  of  Cy- 
prian^s  fortitude ;  and,  in  a  numerous  council,  which  he  assembled 
at  Rome,  in  the  year  251,  procured  the  ejectment  of  JSovaiian 
and  his  adherents  from  the  church,  since  nothing  would  persuade 
them  to  entertain  milder  sentiments  in  regard  to  the  lapsed.(^) 
The  issue  of  this  affair  was  as  unhappy  as  that  of  the  African 
contest;  and  it  was  the  more  lamentable,  on  account  of  the  long 
continuance  of  the  evil,  whereas  the  African  schism  was  compa- 
ratively of  short  duration.  Those  whom  Cornelius  had  excluded 
from  the  Romish  church  formed  themselves  into  an  associated 
body,  over  which  they  placed,  as  bishop,  Novatian,  the  parent  of 
the  association.  This  new  company  of  Christians,  although  de- 
tested by  most  of  the  bishops,  who  approved  the  decrees  [p.  513.] 
of  the  Roman  council,  respecting  the  lapsed,  enjoyed,  neverthe- 
less, staunch  patrons,  and  was  at  once  diffused  through  many 


60  Century  III.— Section  15. 

parts  of  Christendom,  and  could  not  be  suppressed  before  tbe 
ffth  century.  For  this,  its  good  fortune,  it  was  indebted  to  the 
gravity  and  probity  of  the  teachers  who  presided  over  it,  and  to 
the  severity  of  its  discipline,  which  tolerated  no  base  characters, 
none  guilty  of  the  grosser  sins.(') 

(1)  The  .nutbors  of  most  of  the  schisms  among  Christians,  have  been 
charged,  justly  or  unjustly,  with  many  crimes  and  faults;  but  this A^orah'an  was 
not  only  accused  of  no  criminal  act,  but  was  coinmended,  even  by  those  who 
viewed  him  as  warring  against  the  interests  of  the  church,  by  Cyprian,  Jerome 
and  others,  on  account  of  his  eloquence,  his  learning,  and  his  philosophy.  See 
Cyprian,  Epist.  Hi.  and  Ivii.  His  adversary  Cornelius,  indeed  inveighs  ngainst 
him  with  much  bitterness,  in  an  Epistle  to  Fabius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  (preserved 
in  part  by  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vi.  c.  43.  p.  244.  &c.)  ;  but  still  he  does 
not  impeach  his  life  or  moral  conduct.  And  nearly  all  the  charges  he  brings 
against  him,  great  as  they  may  seem  to  be,  relate  to  the  intentions  of  the  mind, 
which  are  known  only  to  God:  and  some  of  the  charges  reflect  more  disgrace 
on  Cornelius  himself  than  Aovatian.  But  he  has  been  taxed  with  ambition  ; 
for  it  is  said  that  he  stirred  up  this  great  controversy,  merely  because  Cornelius 
received  most  votes  for  the  vacant  bishopric,  which  he  himself  coveted.  This 
is  an  old  charge  ;  and  it  has  acquired  so  much  strength  and  authority  by  age 
that  all  the  moderns  repeat  it  with  entire  confidence ;  and  they  tell  us,  that 
Cornelius  and  Novalian  were  competitors  for  the  episcopate,  and  that  the  latter 
failing  of  an  election,  disturbed  the  church,  in  his  lust  for  office.  But  I  have 
no  hesitation  to  pronounce  this  a  false  accusation  ;  and  I  think  there  is  no  good 
proof  that  Novalian  acted  in  bad  faith,  or  that  he  made  religion  a  cloak  for  his 
desire  of  distinction.  His  enemy,  Cornelius,  does  indeed  say  this,  (in  his  Epist. 
apud  Eiiseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vi.  c.  43.  p.  244.):  UpoTraKcti  opiyofMvoc  tmc  'E-ria-Ko- 

TtHs    0    Qit.VfA.a7t'A    Ot/TO?,    KUl  X-puTTTUiV     CP    iClVTCJ    TJjV    TT^CiTTiT^)     r^tVrHV    dUTOU    EITld-VfAiav. 

Admirandus  ille  vir  episcopalis  loci  cupidiLate  jampridem  accensus,  et  preecipi- 
tem  illam  ambitionem  suam  tegens,  diu  omnes  latuit.  But  the  very  words  in 
which  he  is  here  accused,  carry  with  them  his  acquittal.  For  Cornelius  clearly 
shows,  that  he  concealed  his  ambition,  which  long  remained  -unknown.  Now,  if 
this  was  true,  Novalian  certainly  did  nothing  from  which  his  desire  of  the  epis- 
copate could  be  inferred,  nor  could  he  have  labored  to  secure  votes  or  have 
attempted  to  corrupt  the  electors  and  draw  them  into  his  party.  For  the  man 
who  so  conceals  his  ambition,  that  everybody  believes  him  to  seek  no  self- 
aggrandisement,  cannot  surely  be  a  competitor  with  another  man  for  the 
[p.  514.]  episcopal  oflice.  But  Cornelius  supplies  us  with  still  stronger  testi- 
mony to  the  innocence  of  his  adversary.  For  he  acknowledges,  that  when 
they  were  deliberating  at  Rome  respecting  the  choice  of  a  bishop,  and  Novatian 
declared  that  he  wished  some  other  person  than  Ccrnelius  might  be  chosen,  he 
affirmed,  with  a  tremendous  oath,  that  he  himself  did  not  wish  for  the  office  ; 

'O    yap    TO/     \5i(M7rgoTaTOf     Kai     cT/'     le^naiv     ipo/^ipuv     Tiviov     Tria-TiufAivo;     ro     jM«    tTi 

oXcjj  'ETTto-KOTTiif   opeytSd-Ai.    Egregiiis  ille  vir  iremendis  quibusdam  sacramentis 


The  Novatian  Schism.  61 

affirmaverat,  se  Episcopalum  non  concupiscerc. — Now,  whoever  r  eitlicr  does  nor 
attempts  anytliing  that  coiUd  awaken  a  suspicion  of  his  being  ambitious,  and 
morevcr  dechires,  on  oath,  tliat  lie  haa  no  desire  of  the  episcopate,  can  not  possi- 
bly be  a  competitor  for  the  episcopal  office.  But,  some  may  say :  The  vilhiin 
perjured  himself;  and  althoufrh  he  made  a  great  show  of  modesty,  yet  he  o\>- 
posed  the  election  of  Cornelius,  m  order  to  secure  the  appointment  to  iiinisolf 
To  tills  many  things  might  be  said  in  reply ;  I  will  mention  only  one.  Nova- 
tian was  not  a  man  to  whom  a  suspicion  of  perjury  can  be  attached;  he  was  a 
man,  whom  his  very  enemies  pronounced  upright,  inllexible  and  rigorous,  and 
whom  no  one  ever  charged  with  impiety  towards  God,  or  with  being  of  a  perverse 
and  irreligious  disposition.  What  then  could  CorneliushsiyQ  designed  by  writing 
to  Fabian,  and  probably  to  others,  that  Novatian  had  long  secretly  burned  with 
desire  for  the  episcopal  office?  I  answer:  to  confirm  a  conjecture,  and  that  a 
very  dubious  and  intangible  one.  He  reasoned  in  this  manner :  Novatian,  on 
being  expelled  from  the  church,  allow^ed  himself  to  be  created  bishop  by  his 
adherents;  therefore,  he  had  long  coveted  the  office  of  a  bishop,  although  he 
pretended  to  the  contrary.  How  fallacious  and  unworthy  of  a  bishop  such 
reasoning  is,  I  need  not  here  show.  There  would  indeed  be  a  little  plausibility 
in  it,  though  very  slight,  if  Novatian,  immediately  after  the  election  of  Corne- 
lius, had  wished  his  friends  to  create  Mm  also  a  bishop;  a  thing  entirely  within 
his  power  to  effect.  But  he  postponed  all  movements  for  erecting  a  new 
church,  and  patiently  awaited  the  decision  of  the  approaching  council.  And 
after  he  had  been  condemned  and  excluded  from  the  church,  together  with  his 
adherents,  he  thought  there  could  be  no  sin  in  his  taking  the  oversight  of  his 
own  company.  The  invidious  representations  of  this  affair  by  Cornelius,  can 
not  at  this  day  be  refuted,  owing  to  the  want  of  documents;  yet,  as  they  come 
from  an  enemy,  they  are  not  to  be  received  implicitly  by  those  who  would 
judge  equitably. 

Novatian,  before  he  became  a  Christian,  was  a  philosopher,  and  most  proba- 
bly a  Stoic.  From  the  account  Cornelius  gives  of  him,  he  appears  to  have 
been  of  a  melancholy  temperament,  and  consequently,  gloomy,  austere,  and 
fond  of  retirement.  Those  who  forsook  him  and  came  back  to  the  Romish 
church,  said  they  found  in  the  man,  what  Cornelius  calls  (apud  Eusehium, 
p.  242.):  Thv  dKoivccvmriAv  kui  \viio(fi\ittVy  which  Valerius  translates  abhorrenlem 
ab  omni  societale  feritatem,  et  Iwpinam  quamdam  amicitiam.  He  therefore  shunned 
society,  and  was  wolfish  towards  even  his  friends;  i.  e.  he  was  harsh,  [p.  515.] 
austere,  and  ungracious  in  his  intercourse.  That  these  things  were  objected  to 
him  with  truth,  I  have  no  doubt ;  for  manners  like  these  are  entirely  accordant 
with  his  principles.  He  was  led  to  embrace  Christianity  by  a  deep  melancholy, 
into  which  he  had  follen,  and  from  which  he  hoped  to  be  recovered  by  the 
Christians.  At  least,  so  we  must  understand,  in  my  judgment,  what  Cornelius 
has  stated,  (nor  will  any  who  are  familiar  with  the  opinions  and  jihraseology  of 
the  ancient  Christians,  understand  Cornelius  differently,)  :  'Api/)^«  tow  TrtrrtZTdit 
yeyiyiv  o  IatavS;,  f.o/TJ)Vatf  Its  avrdv  Kai  htit.\\<r'xs  iv  duno  ;tp3V5V  Uavov.  Caussa?n 
alque  iniiimn  crcdendi  ipsi  Satanas  in  ipsum  ijigressus  atque  in  ipso  aliquamdiu 
commoratus.     This  in  our  style  and  mode  of  speaking,  would  be :  A  deep  and 


62  Century  III.— Section  15. 

settled  melanchohj  had  fastened  on  his  mind:  mid  the  Christians  who  knew  him 
said,  that  an  evil  spirit  had  got  possession  of  him,  and  that  if  he  would  profess 
Christ,  the  evil  spirit  would  go  out  of  him  ;  so,  from  a  hope  of  recovering  his 
health,  he  professed  Christianity.  Perhaps  his  mehineholy  was  attended  by  con- 
vulsions. I  have  not  here  put  a  hasty  and  unwarrantable  construction  on  the 
statement;  for  it  is  not  credible  that  Novatian  himself,  being  a  Stoic  philosopher, 
would  refer  his  malady  to  an  evil  spirit.  This  notion  was  instilled  into  him  by 
the  Christians;  who,  undoubtedly,  were  desirous  to  bring  a  man  of  such  cor- 
rect morals  to  become  a  Christian  ;  and  they  gradually  made  him  a  convert  to 
their  faith.  Impatient  of  his  malady,  Novatian  yielded  to  their  exhortations. 
But  by  the  regulations  of  the  ancient  church,  he  could  not  be  baptized  so  long 
as  he  appeared  to  be  under  the  power  of  an  evil  spirit.  Exorcists  were  there- 
fore sent  to  him,  to  expel  the  foul  demon  by  their  prayers.  But  they  failed  of 
success ;  and  Novatian  at  length  being  seized  with  a  threatening  disease,  while 
under  their  operations,  was  baptized  in  his  bed,  when  apparently  about  to  die. 
On  recovering  from  the  sickness,  he  seems  to  have  hesitated  whether  he  should 
in  health  confirm  what  he  had  done  in  his  sickness,  and  thus  persevere  in  the 
Christian  religion.  For,  as  Cornelius  invidiously  says  of  him,  he  could  not  be 
persuaded  to  submit  to  the  other  rites  prescribed  by  the  church,  and  be  con- 
firmed by  the  bishop,  or  be  signed,  as  the  term  used  expresses  it.  For  this  per- 
tinacity, and  disregard  of  the  Christian  regulations,  unquestionably  the  only  as- 
signable cause  must  have  been,  that  his  mind  was  fluctuating  between  the  phi- 
losophy he  had  before  followed,  and  the  Christian  religion  which  he  had 
embraced  from  a  hope  of  recovering  his  health.  Nor  can  I  much  wonder  at 
this  dubilation :  for  the  Christians  had  assured  him  of  the  restoration  of  hia 
health  by  the  exorcists,  who  had  failed  in  the  undertaking.  Nevertheless,  the 
bishop,  Fahian  perhaps,  a  while  after,  made  him  a  presbyter  in  his  church,  con- 
trary to  the  wishes  of  the  whole  body  of  priests,  and  of  a  large  part  of  the 
church.  (See  Cornelius,  apud  Euseh.  1.  c.  p.  245.)  It  was  altogether  irregular 
and  contrary  to  ecclesiastical  rules,  to  admit  a  man  to  the  priestly  office,  who 
had  been  baptized  in  bed ;  that  is,  who  had  been  merely  sprinkled,  and  had  not 
[p.  516.]  been  wholly  immersed  in  water  in  the  ancient  method.  For  by  many, 
and  especially  by  the  Roman  Christians,  the  baptism  of  Clinicks,  (so  they 
called  those,  who,  lest  they  should  die  out  of  the  church,  were  baptized  on  a 
eick  bed,)  was  accounted  less  perfect,  and  indeed  less  valid,  and  not  sufficient 
for  the  attainment  of  salvation.  This  also  was  even  more  strange  and  unheard 
of,  that  a  man  should  be  admitted  among  the  teachers  and  leaders  of  the  Chris- 
tian people,  who  disregarded  the  laws  of  the  church,  and  pertinaciously  rejected 
the  authority  and  confiimation  of  the  bishop.  The  belief  of  this  age  was, 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  imparted  by  the  confirmation  or  signing  of  the  bishop  ; 
so  that  all  those  lacked  the  Holy  Spirit,  whose  baptism  had  not  been  approved 
and  ratified  by  the  bishop,  by  prayers,  imposition  of  hands,  and  other  rites. 
Ample  proof  of  this  is  given  by  Cornelius,  who  expressly  states,  that  Novatian 
was  destitute  of  the  Holy  Spirit  because  he  neglected  the  signing  of  the 

bishop.      Toyrcy   tTe   ^«    tu^uv,   rraif    av   tow    ayiou    jrvcv/uetro{    tTU^t  ^    IJoc    autem 

(the  signing  of  the  bishop,)  minime  percepto,  quo  tandem  modo  Spiritum  sane- 


The  Novatian   Schism.  g3 

turn  jiotuit  accipere  1  The  Roman  bishop,  thtrofore,  committed  a  gre:it  fault 
by  conferring  the  honored  office  of  a  presbyter  on  a  man,  who  resisted  tlic  hiwa 
of  the  church,  and  whom  he  knew  to  be  destitute  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  And 
not  only  the  body  of  presbyters,  but  also  the  people,  perceived  tlie  magnitude 
of  this  fault;  and  both  entreated  the  bishop  not  to  confer  that  honor  upon 
Novatian.  But  I  can  easily  see,  what  may  have  induced  the  prelate  to  violate 
the  laws  of  the  church  in  regard  to  this  man.  He  feared  lest  the  man  should 
forsake  the  Christian  religion  and  revert  to  his  former  errors,  of  which  disposi- 
tion he  had  perhaps  given  some  proofs.  And  therefore,  to  bind  him  to  the 
church,  and  prevent  his  apostatizing,  he  conferred  this  honor  upon  him.  In 
this  opinion  I  am  much  confirmed  by  what  is  stated  by  Cornelius,  (apud  Euseb. 
p.  245.)  that  Novatian  was  raised  to  the  rank  of  a  presbyter,  immediately  after 

receiving  baptism:  Uia-Tiva-cti  x:it«^/w3-«  tou  Tr^ia^vTifiou  ksltu  ;^u§/v  tow 
iTTia-Ko^roVi  (which  is  not  badly  translated  by  Valesius) :  Post  susceplum  baptis- 
man  (properly,  as  soon  as  lie  had  believed)  Presbyteri  gradum  fuerat  conseculus^ 
idque  per  graiiam  episcopi.  Very  justly  said  to  be  by  the  favor  of  the  bishop: 
for  it  was  contrary  to  the  laws  and  customs  of  the  church,  to  admit  a  man  to 
the  office  of  presbyter  almost  as  soon  as  he  was  baptized,  and  before  he  had 
filled  the  office  of  deacon.  This  very  honorary  and  unusual  benevolence  of  the 
bishop,  retained  Novatian  in  the  church,  but  it  did  not  so  heal  and  confirm  his 
diseased  mind,  as  wholly  to  extinguish  all  propensity  to  leave  the  church.  For, 
on  the  rise  of  the  Decian  persecution,  when  the  deacons  called  on  him  to  quit 
his  chamber,  where  he  kept  shut  up,  and  perform  the  functions  of  a  presbyter 
among  his  toiling  and  oppressed  brethren,  he  refused  to  do  it ;  nay,  openly  de- 
clared, that  the  office  of  presbyter  was  irksome  to  him,  and  that  he  had  thoughts 
of  returning  again  to  his  philosophy :  M«  ya^  In  0ovKi<r^st.t  rr§£o-/3t/Ts/)cc  Itvm 
tf>fi  triple  yup  'itvst.t  <pi\c<r6<pisL5  tpaa-rns.  Respondit,  non  ampUus  se  velle  [p.  517.] 
presbytei'wn  esse,  sed  alterius  philosophicc  amore  teneri. — I  have  introduced  these 
remarks  on  the  life  of  Novatian.  because  they  show  that  he  was  fiir  from  being 
an  evil-minded  man,  though  he  was  of  a  melancholy  and  singular  character; 
and  they  explain  the  cause  of  that  schism  which  originated  from  him.  Nova- 
tian wrote  much,  but  nothing  that  has  reached  us,  except  a  tract  de  Trinitate ; 
which  is  commonly  printed  with  the  works  of  Terlullian,  and,  a  few  years 
since,  was  published  separately,  with  Notes  and  Observations  by  Jackson,  in 
London.  But  some  learned  men  contend,  and  not  without  apparent  reason, 
that  it  is  uncertain  whether  Novatian  was  the  author  of  this  tract. 

(2)  That  the  African  presbyter  Novatus,  who  fled  from  Carthage  to  Rome  to 
avoid  the  sentence  of  Cyprian,  became  an  associate  and  a  coadjutor  of  Novatian, 
procured  him  many  friends,  and  with  vast  zeal  and  effort  cherished  and  pro- 
moted his  cause,  is  abundantly  proved  by  the  Epistles  of  Cyprian,  by  Jerome, 
by  Pacian,  and  many  others.  Novatian,  a  man  gloomy  and  retiring,  would 
have  given  way  to  admonition,  or  would  have  been  easily  overcome,  had  not 
his  irresolute  mind  been  excited  and  fortified  by  the  various  appliances  of  that 
factious,  active,  eloquent  man,  an  adept  at  kindling  the  passions,  who  was  influ- 
enced, undoubtedly,  by  his  hatred  of  Cyprian,  the  pnrtizan  of  Cornelius.  And 
necessity  also  urged  Novatus  to  embrace  and  defend  the  party  of  ISovatian,  with 


64  Century  III. — Section  15. 

all  his  might,  and  even  to  the  establishing  of  a  new  church  at  Rome.  He  had 
repaired  to  Rome  as  to  a  haven  of  security,  in  order  to  be  safe  from  the  shafts 
of  Cyprian  and  the  Africans.  But  it'  Cornelius,  tiie  intimate  of  his  adversary, 
should  continue  at  the  head  of  the  Romish  church,  he  himself  would  most  as- 
suredly be  rejected  and  expelled  from  it.  It  was  therefore  necessary  for  him 
either  to  seek  another  asylum,  or  to  cause  Cornelius  to  be  deposed  from  the 
bishopric,  or  lastly,  to  establish  a  new  church  in  which  he  would  find  shelter. 
He  therefore,  more  for  his  own  safety,  than  for  the  honor  of  JSovalian,  prevailed 
by  his  eloquence  on  the  Roman  confessors,  i.  e.  on  that  portion  of  the  church 
whic-h  possessed  the  greatest  influence  and  efficiency,  to  pUice  themselves  in 
opposition  to  Cornelius;  a  thing,  which  Noiatian  eilher  could  not,  or  would  not 
attempt.  Says  Cyprian  (Epist.  xlix.  p.  65.) :  Novato  illinc  a  vobis  recedente, 
id  est,  procella  et  turbine  recedente,  ex  parte  illic  quies  facta  est,  et  gloriosi  ac 
boni  confessorcs,  qui  de  ecclesia  illo  incilante  discesserant,  posteaquam  ille  ab 
urbe  discessit,  ad  ecclesiam  reverterunt.  The  same  man,  and  not  Novatian, 
who  was  a  quiet  man,  though  austere  and  rigid,  induced  a  portion  of  the 
people  at  Rome  to  abandon  Cornelius.  Says  Cyprian:  similia  et  pariaRomae 
molitus  est,  quae  Carthagine,  a  clero  portionem  plebis  avellens,  fraternitatis 
bene  sibi  cohaerentis  et  se  inviceni  diligentis  concordiam  scindens.  He  also 
[p.  518.]  persuaded  Nomtian,  a  timid  man,  and  perhaps  reluctating,  to  allow 
himself  to  be  created  bishop :  Qui  istic  (at  Carthage,)  adversus  ccclesiam  dia- 
conum  fecerat,  illic  (at  Rome,)  episcopum  fecit;  i.e.  he  ceased  not  to  urge 
Novalian  and  his  friends,  until  he  prevailed  with  the  latter  to  elect  a  bishop,  and 
with  the  former  to  take  upon  him  that  office.  He  likewise  consented  to  be  de- 
spatched to  Africa,  with  others,  by  the  new  bishop ;  and  thus  empowered,  he 
established,  at  Carthage  and  other  places,  bishops  adhearing  to  the  Novatian 
party.  Every  thing  was  planned  and  executed  by  the  active  Novatus,  and 
nothing  or  but  little  by  Novatian.  These  acts  were  criminal,  and  they  indicate 
a  turbulent  spirit,  thirsting  for  revenge,  and  more  solicitous  for  victory  and 
self-advancement  than  for  either  truth  or  tranquility.  Neither  would  I  become 
the  patron  of  the  man :  and  yet  there  is  one  thing,  in  which  he  appears  to  ma 
less  culpable  than  is  commonly  thought.  All  the  ecclesiastical  historians,  whom 
I  have  read,  add  this  to  his  other  crimes,  that  at  Rome  he  approved  opinions 
directly  opposite  to  those  which  he  maintained  in  Africa:  whence  they  con- 
clude, that  he  showed  his  malignity,  by  this  whiffling  and  inconsistent  course : 
At  Carthage,  say  they,  he  was  mild  and  lenient  to  the  lapsed,  and  thought  they 
ought,  especially  such  of  them  as  presented  Certificates  of  Peace,  to  be  kindly 
received,  and  be  admitted  to  the  church  and  to  the  Lord's  supper,  without  un- 
dergoing penance;  and  this  was  intended  to  vex  Cyprian.  But  at  Rome,  with 
Novalian,  he  excluded  the  lapsed  forever  from  the  church;  and  was  so  austere 
and  uncompassionate,  in  order  to  overthrow  Cornelius.  Now  whether  the 
learned  have  judged  correctly  in  this  matter,  I  very  much  doubt.  Cyprian,  the 
most  bitter  of  Novatus'  enemies,  enumerates  all  his  faults,  real  or  fictitious,  in  a 
long  catalogue  ;  but  he  does  not  mention  this.  Such  silence  in  his  enemy,  is 
alone  sufficient,  in  my  view,  to  clear  his  memory  from  this  charge.  Cyprian 
likewise  touches  on  the    opinion,  which,  after  the  example  of  Novatian,  he 


The  Novatian  Schism.  65 

maintnincd  at  Rome:  but  he  docs  not  add,  that  wliilc  in  Africa  he  held  a  diflor- 
ent  and  opposite  opinion:  which  he  would  doubtless  have  not  omitted,  if  .Volo- 
tits  could  be  justly  charged  with  the  inconsistency.  With  an  affectation  of  wit, 
Cyprian  says:  Damnarc  nunc  audet  sacrificantiuin  manus,  (i.  e.  he  denies  that 
persons  who  have  sacrificed  with  their  hands,  should  be  received  again  into  the 
church,)  cum  sit  ipse  nocentior  pcdibus,  (i.  e.  when  he  had  himself  been  more 
guilty  with  his  feet:  very  bad  taste!)  quibus  filiiis  qui  nascebatur  occisus  est. 
Novatus  was  reported  to  have  kicked  his  pregnnnt  wife  in  her  abdomen.  Cy- 
prian would  have  used  other  language,  if  Novatus  had  been  chargeable  with 
changing  his  opinions  respecting  the  lapsed.  He  would  have  said:  Damnare 
nunc  audel  sacrijicantium  manus,  quum  pedes  eorum  aniea  osculatus  sit,  (he  now 
dares  condemn  the  hands  of  sacrificers,  whereas  before  he  kissed  their  feet.) 
This  comparison  would  have  more  force  and  more  truth.  The  learned  have  no 
other  reason  for  believing  that  Novatus  at  Rome  condemned  the  lapsed,  whom 
in  Africa  he  patronized,  except  their  persuasion,  that  he  was  one  of  the  five 
presbyters,  who  deserted  Cyprian  at  Carthage  ;  for  Cyprian  complains  of  them, 
that  they  were  too  indulgent  towards  the  lapsed.  But  we  have  before  shown 
that  Novatus  was  not  one  of  them  ;  for  it  is  evident  that  he  had  his  [p.  519.] 
contest  with  Cijprian,  long  before  the  five  presbyters  had  theirs. 

(3)  Of  the  Roman  council,  in  which  Novatian  was  condemned  and  ejected 
from  the  church,  an  account  is  given  by  Cyprian,  (Epist.  lii.)  by  Eusebius,  and 
by  others  of  the  ancients,  Novatian  was  present ;  but  he  could  not  be 
brought  to  agree  with  the  bishops,  that  pardon  should  be  granted  to  the  Chris- 
tians who  lapsed  in  the  time  of  persecution.  He  had  not  always  held  the  same 
opinion ;  for  before  his  contest  with  Cornelius,  he  had  decided  that  pardon 
should  be  extended  to  all  the  lapsed,  who  relented,  confessed,  and  submitted  to 
the  ecclesiastical  penalties.  This  we  learn,  not  only  from  Cyprian,  (Epist. 
lii.)  but  also  from  others.  But,  in  the  heat  of  contention,  as  often  happens, 
he  insensibly  became  more  strenuous  than  he  was  before.  We  are  informed, 
not  only  by  Cyprian,  but  also  by  Socrates,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  iv.  c.  28.  p.  245.) 
that  Novatian's  reason  for  opposing  the  advancement  of  Cornelius  to  the  See 
of  Rome,  was,  that  he  held  friendly  intercourse  with  the  lapsed,  before  they 
had  made  satisfaction  to  the  church.  Nor  does  Cyprian  venture  to  deny  that 
fact,  but  only  to  apologise  for  it.  He  says,  (Epist.  lii.  p.  69)  :  Sed  et  quod 
passim  (here  passim  is  equivalent  to  promiscue)  communicare  sacrificatis  Corne- 
lius tibi  nunciatus,  hoc  etiam  de  apostatarum  fictis  rumoribus  nascitur.  Ho 
here  seems  to  deny  the  fact;  but  a  little  afterwards,  he  admits  pretty  plainly, 
that  Cornelius  had  given  reconciliation  to  the  lapsed  in  case  of  sickness,  and 
had  not  required  of  them  to  do  penance  when  restored  to  health.  Si  qui  infir- 
mitatibus  occupantur,  illis,  sicut  placuit,  in  periculo  subvenitur.  And  that  he 
treated  the  Libellatici  with  still  greater  lenity,  is  also  not  dissembled.  It  was 
not,  therefore,  a  sheer  fiction,  that  Novatian  charged  upon  Cornelius.  Perhaps 
some,  at  Rome,  were  less  cautious  than  Cyprian  in  their  defence  of  Cornelius, 
and  while  they  admitted  the  charge  to  its  full  extent,  contended  that  it  was  a 
trivial  fault,  and  not  derogatory  to  the  character  of  a  bishop.  By  the  reasoning 
of  these  men,  the  bilious  and  morose  Novatian  was  so  irritated,  that  he  allirmcd, 

VOL.  n.  6 


66  Century  III— Section  16. 

at  last,  that  the  lapsed  ought  to  be  forever  excluded  from  communion  with  the 
bishop  and  the  church  ;  and  in  this  way  he  aimed  to  strip  the  bishop's  advoeatea 
of  all  arguments  in  his  favor.  And  having  assumed  this  ground  in  the  heat  of 
controversy,  he  afterwards  would  not  abandon  it,  lest  he  should  appear  vacillat- 
ing and  unstable  in  his  opinions.  And  undoubtedly,  Novalus  urged  him  not  to 
yield  to  any  admonitions. 

(4)  I  will  not  enumerate  the  patrons  and  favorers  of  Novatian,  some  of 
whom  were  men  of  high  character,  nor  trace  the  progress  of  the  sect.  It  ap- 
pears from  Socrates,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  iv.  c.  28.  p.  245.)  that  the  Epistles,  which 
Novatian  sent  throughout  the  Christian  world,  had  great  effect  on  the  minds  of 
many,  and  drew  them  over  to  his  party.  From  Eusebius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vi. 
c.  44.  p.  246.  et  c.  46.  p.  248.)  it  appears,  that  Fabius,  the  bishop  of  Antioch, 
and  many  others,  leaned  towards  his  opinions,  from  fear  lest  too  great  indul- 
[p.  520.]  gence  to  the  lapsed  should  produce  peril  and  damage  to  the  church. 
It  also  appears,  that  the  Novatians  collected  congregations  of  considerable 
magnitude,  first  in  Africa,  and  then  in  various  parts  of  Europe,  Asia,  and 
Africa,  at  Rome,  Constantinople,  in  Spain,  in  Gaul,  and  in  Phrygia.  And  the 
causes  of  this  success  are  noticed  by  the  ancients.  In  the  first  place,  as 
Socrates  remarks  in  the  passage  before  cited,  the  severity  of  the  sect  towards 
those  who  stained  their  characters  by  sin,  procured  for  it  a  high  estimation 
among  those  very  studious  of  piety.  And  then,  the  gravity,  and  the  purity  of 
morals,  which  most  of  their  teachers  exhibited,  could  not  fail  to  procure  for 
them  respect  from  the  people.  And  hence,  Consianiine  the  Great  exempted 
them  from  the  liabilities  of  the  other  heretics ;  and,  by  a  law  enacted  A.  D.  326. 
(inserted  in  the  Codex  Theodos.  torn.  vi.  p.  124.)  he  allowed  them  to  enjoy  the 
temples  and  property  they  had  legitimately  acquired.  But  the  subsequent  em- 
perors were  not  equally  indulgent  to  them  ;  and  a  law  of  the  younger  Theodo- 
sius,  A.  D.  423,  (found  also  in  the  Codex  Theodos.  torn,  vi,  p.  202.)  decreed 
the  same  penalties  against  them,  as  against  the  other  sects.  He  had  previously, 
in  the  year  413,  enacted  a  severe  law  against  a  branch  of  the  Novatian  sect, 
who  bore  the  name  of  Sabbatians  or  Protopaschites.  The  name  was  taken 
from  one  Sabbalius,  who,  near  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  separated 
from  the  other  Novatians,  because  he  thought  the  feast  of  Easter  should  be 
celebrated  at  the  same  time  with  the  Jewish  Passover.  See  Ja.  GoiJwfred  on 
the  Codex  Theodos.  (tom.  vi.  p.  222.)  From  the  fifth  century,  it  appears,  the 
sect  gradully  died  away ;  and  yet  some  slight  relics  of  it  were  apparent  in  the 
sixth  century. 

§  XYI.  The  Novatian  Doctrines.  As  to  the  Christian  rchgion, 
generally,  there  was  no  disagreement  between  the  Novatians  and 
other  Christians.  But  that  which  especially -distinguished  them 
from  the  great  body  of  Christians  was,  that  they  denied  a  re- 
admission  into  the  church,  to  all  who  fell  into  the  greater  sins 
after  baptism,  and  especially  to  those  who,  under  the  pressure  of 
persecution,  revolted  from  Christ  and  sacrificed  to  the  gods :  and 


The  Novatian  Doctrines.  fff 

yet  tliey  did  not  exclude  tlicsc  persons  from  all  hope  of  eternal 
salvation. (')  In  close  connection  witli  this  doctrine  was  another, 
that  they  could  not  look  upon  a  church  as  an3^thing  short  of  an 
assembly  of  unoffending  persons ;  persons  who,  since  they  first 
entered  the  church,  had  not  defiled  themselves  with  any  sin 
which  could  expose  them  to  eternal  death.  And  this  error 
obliged  them  to  regard  all  associations  of  Christians,  that  allowed 
great  offenders  to  return  to  their  communion,  (that  is,  the  greatest 
part  of  the  Christian  commonwealth,)  as  unworthy  of  the  name 
of  true  churches,  and  destitute  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  thus  [p.  521.] 
arrogating  to  themselves  alone,  the  appellation  of  a  genuine  and 
pure  church.  And  this  they  ventured  publicly  to  proclaim.  For 
they  assumed  to  themselves  the  name  of  Caihari  (the  Pure),  there- 
by obviously  stigmatizing  all  other  Christians  as  impure  and 
defiled ;  and  they  re-baptized  the  Christians  Avho  came  over  to 
them,  thereby  signifying  that  the  baptisms  of  the  churches  from 
which  they  dissented  were  a  vain  and  empty  ceremony.Q  The 
other  things  reported  concerning  the  faith  of  this  sect,  are  either 
uncertain,  or  altogether  incredible. 


(1)  Of  the  ancient  writers  who  mention  and  condemn  the  principal  error  of 
Novalian,  respecting  the  perpetual  exclusion  of  lapsed  Christians  from  the 
church,  some  express  themselves  obscurely  and  ambiguously,  and  others  seem 
to  disagree  with  each  other.  It  is  tlierefore  not  strange  that  the  moderns,  also, 
in  treating  of  the  Novatians,  should  vary  in  their  statements,  and  advance  di- 
verse  opinions.  Tlii?,  in  general,  is  undoubtedly  true,  that  Novatian  and  his 
adherents  excluded  for  ever  from  the  church,  those  who  fell  into  sins  after  bap- 
tism. But  there  are  two  things  which  admit  of  dispute:  First,  who  were 
meant  by  the  Lapsed? — Secondhj,  whether  he  excluded  the  lapsed  from  the 
church  only,  or  also  from  heaven  and  eternal  salvation  ?  As  to  the  first  point, 
it  is  certain  that  the  contest  between  Cornelius  and  Novalian,  in  its  origin,  re- 
lated solely  to  those  who  had  fallen  away  in  the  Dccian  persecution.  And  yet 
it  is  no  less  certain,  that  Novatian,  as  Cyprian  gravely  charges  upon  him, 
(Epist.  lii.  p.  74.)  placed  all  persons  whatever,  whose  conduct  showed  a  de- 
ficiency of  Christian  firmness,  in  one  and  the  same  predicament ;  and  he  in- 
flicted the  same  penalties  on  the  Libellatici  as  on  the  Sacrificati  and  the  Thuri- 
jkati.  And  as  the  laws  of  the  ancient  church  considered  certain  other  trans- 
gressors, especially  adulterers  and  murderers,  as  equally  guilty  with  the  apos- 
tates, Novatian,  also,  seems  to  have  comprehended  them  all  in  one  sentence, 
and  to  have  ordered  the  church  doors  to  be  for  ever  closed  against  others,  fia 
well  as  against  apostates.  And  those  writers  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  ccnturica, 
who  mention  this  Novatian  doctrine,  whether  they  refute  it,  or  only  cx])hiin  it> 


68  Century  III. — Section  16. 

all  80  understood  it,  telling  u3  that  Novatian  prohibited  all  persons,  guilty  of 
any  great  fault,  from  re-admission  to  the  church.  And  this  rule  certainly  was 
practised  by  the  Novatian  churches  in  those  centuries.  This  is  most  explicitly 
affirmed  by  Asdepiade.^,  the  Novatian  bishop  of  Nice,  in  the  fourth  century 
(apud  Sncratem,  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  25 ;  p.  367.)  :  'Extoj  tow  tTid-va-At  koj 

aWai    TToWal    Kctru    ruj   ypAtpas    ei<riv    afxigtixi    irpos   d-avarovy    cT/'    Sj    vfxiti  juiiv    Trpof 

rous  K\iipi>t'.ui,  «,«£7s  cTe  icai  Tovi  ka'Uqvs  droKKiiofxiv.  Praster  sacrifieium  idolo- 
[p.  522.]  rum  sunt  et  alia  multa  peccata  ad  mortem,  ut  loquuntur  seripturse, 
propter  quce  vos  quidem  clericos,  nos  vero  etiara  laicos  a  communione  remove- 
mus.  In  nearly  the  same  manner,  Acesius,  another  Novatian  bishop,  explains 
the  views  of  his  sect,  (apud  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  i.  c.  10 ;  p.  38).  He  says, 
that  from  the  times  of  Decius,  there  prevailed  among  his  people  this  austeram 
legem  (dua-rnpov  ndvovcs) :  Neminem,  qui  post  baptismum  ejusmodi  crimen  ad- 
miserit,  quod  pecatum  ad  mortem  divinas  scripturse  pronuntiant,  ad  divinorum 
mysteriorum  communionem  admitti  oportere.  None  of  the  ancients,  so  fir  as  I 
know,  has  left  us  a  catalogue  of  the  sins  which  the  Novatians  accounted  mortal; 
and,  of  course,  it  is  not  fully  known  how  far  their  discipline  reached,  though  all 
pronounce  it  very  rigid.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  (Orat.  xxxix.  0pp.  tom.  ii.  p.  636.) 
is  dissatisfied,  because  they  did  not  include  avarice  among  the  mortal  sins,  since 
the  Scriptures  pronounce  this  sin  as  great  as  that  of  Pagan  worship,  and  declare 
it  to  be  a  species  of  idolatry.  But  the  good  man  is  mistaken.  The  Novatians 
did  not  punish  vicious  mental  habits,  such  as  avarice  and  the  like,  but  acts  con- 
travening any  of  the  greater  commands  of  God,  or  what  are  called  crimes. 
Gregory,  also,  in  the  same  Oration,  states  that  the  Novatians  reckoned  second 
marriages  among  mortal  sins ;  which  is  attested  by  Epiphanius,  Augustine, 
Tlieodoret,  and  many  others.  Neither  is  this  utterly  false ;  for  Socrates,  who 
was  well  versed  in  Novatian  affairs,  informs  us,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  v.  c.  22 ;  p. 
288.)  that  not  all  the  Novatians,  but  only  those  of  Phrygia,  excommunicated 
the  persons  who  contracted  second  marriages.  This  fact  suggests  to  us  the  ori- 
gin and  source  of  this  custom.  There  were  followers  oi  Montanus  still  residing 
in  Phrygia,  in  the  fourth  century,  and  they  condemned  second  marriages.  These 
mixed  with  the  Novatians,  whom  they  admired  for  their  severe  discipline,  so 
congenial  to  their  own  practice,  and  undoubtedly  persuaded  them  to  adopt  this 
part  of  the  Montanist  discipline. — It  is  therefore  beyond  a  question,  that  the  No- 
vatian church,  in  its  maturity,  refused  to  commune,  not  only  with  apostatizing 
Christians,  but  also  with  all  persons  guilty  of  the  grosser  sins.  But  the  inquiry 
still  remains,  whether  the  church,  at  its  commencement,  and  also  the  founder  of 
it,  held  the  same  opinion.  That  there  is  ground  for  doubt  on  the  subject,  ap- 
pears from  the  52d  Epistle  of  Cyprian,  who  sometimes  speaks  as  if  Novatian  al- 
lowed a  place  in  his  church  to  adulterers,  and  to  other  equally  great  sinnez's, 
and  excluded  only  deserters  of  Christianity,  or  apostates.  He  says,  (p.  74.)  • 
Aut  si  80  cordis  et  renis  scrutatorem  constituit  et  judicem  (Novatianus),  per 
omnia  sequaliter  judicet  -  -  et  fraudatores  et  moechos  a  latere  atque  a  comitatu 
suo  separet,  quando  multo  et  gravior  et  pejor  sit  moechi,  quam  libellatici  caussa, 
cum  hie  necessitate,  ille  voluntatc  peccaverit.  A  little  after  he  adds :  Nee  sibi 
in  hoc  novi  haeretici  blandiantur,  quod  se  dicant  idololatris  non  comraunicare, 


The  Novatlan  Doctrines.  ($0 

quando  sint  apud  illos  iidulteri  ct  fraiulalorca,  qui  teneantur  idololatriai  [p.  523.] 
criniiue,  secundum  Apostoluin.  And  a  little  after:  Ita  fit,  ut  si  peceato  alteriua 
inquinari  alterum  diennt,  et  idololatriam  delinquentis  ad  non  delinquenteni 
transire  sua  asseveratione  contendunt,  excuanii  secundum  suam  voeem  non 
possint  ab  idololatriai  crimine,  cum  constet  dc  Apostolica  probatione  mcechos 
et  IVaudatores,  quibus  illi  communi(.-ant,  idololatras  esse.  One  cursorily  reading 
these  passages,  might  easily  fall  into  the  belief  that  Novatian  tolerated  adulter- 
ers and  defrauders  in  his  congregation,  or  did  not  forbid  this  class  of  offenders, 
after  undergoing  the  penances  prescribed  by  the  church,  to  be  again  received 
among  the  brethren;  and,  therefore,  that  he  closed  the  doors  of  the  church  only 
against  folsifiers  of  their  faith.  But,  if  I  do  not  greatly  mistake,  one  who  shall 
attentively  and  sagaciously  examine  all  that  Cyprian  says  on  the  subject,  will 
come  to  a  different  conclusion.  He  is  not  treating  of  manifest  adulterers  and 
defrauders,  but  only  of  clandestine  and  concealed  ones;  and  his  mode  of  reason- 
ing is  this :  It  may  be  that  there  are  dishonest  men  among  the  followers  of 
Novatian,  who,  while  they  profess  chastity  and  uprightness,  secretly  defile  them- 
selves with  adultery  and  fraudulent  dealing  :  and  it  is  most  probable,  that  there 
are  such  degenerate  Christians  contaminating  all  societies  of  Christians,  and,  of 
course,  also  the  Novatians.  If,  then,  it  be  true,  as  the  Novatians  maintain,  that 
a  man  becomes  a  sinner  himself,  by  associating  fraternally  with  a  sinner,  the 
Novatians  must  be  in  perpetual  peril,  and  may  not  escape  the  stains  and  spots 
of  sin,  whatever  pains  they  may  take.  That  such  is  the  import  of  Cyprian's 
reasoning,  is,  I  think,  manifest  from  the  first  part  of  it :  Si  se  cordis  et  renis 
scrutatorem  dicit  et  constituit  Novatianus,  fraudatores  et  moechos  a  latere  suo 
separet.  Had  he  been  speaking  of  persons,  Avhose  adulteries  and  crimes  were 
publicly  known,  there  would  have  been  no  need  of  searching  the  heart  and  the 
reins,  in  order  to  discriminate  the  evil  doers  from  the  other  Christians.  But  for 
detecting  and  discriminating  secret  adulterers  and  defrauders,  a  sagacity  more 
than  human,  an  exploration  of  the  hearts  of  men  was  requisite.  To  show  how 
difficult  it  is  to  remove  all  sinners  from  the  congregation  of  the  just,  Cyprian 
selected  two  out  of  many  crimes,  adultery  and  fraud,  which  are  commonly  com- 
mitted with  so  much  secrecy  and  caution,  as  to  escape  public  notice.  There  are, 
indeed,  in  this  same  Epistle  of  Cyprian,  the  following  words,  relative  to  adul- 
terers :  Quibus  tamen  et  ipsis  poenitentia  conceditur  et  lamentandi  ac  satisfaci- 
en(M  spes  relinquitur  secundum  ipsum  Apostolum,  2  Cor.  xii.  Some  learned 
men  think  that  these  words  warrant  the  belief,  that  Novatian  allowed  adulterers 
to  expect  a  re-admission  to  the  church.  But,  in  my  opinion,  they  are  most  cer- 
tainly mistaken.  For,  so  far  is  this  passage  from  showing  that  Novatian  allowed 
a  reconciliation  to  adulterers,  that  it  docs  not  show  that  all  other  Christians, 
except  Novatians,  would  receive  them.  Cyprian  says  no  more  than  this,  that 
8t.  Paul  left  to  adulterers  a  hope  of  penitence  and  satisfaction.  And,  [p.  524.] 
therefore,  although  the  controversy  commenced  with  those  unf;iithful  Christians, 
who  apostatized  in  the  Decian  persecution,  yet,  it  is  most  probable,  that  the 
Novatian  church,  from  its  origin,  decided  that  all  persons  violating  the  principal 
Iaw&  of  God,  after  baptism,  ought  for  ever  to  be  excluded  from  the  as.«embly 
of  the  brethren. 


70  Century  Ill—Section  16. 

I  come  now  to  the  other  point,  on  which  I  stated  there  was  room  for  some 
doubt.  A  great  number  of  moilcrn  writers  tell  us,  that  Novatlau  cut  oft*  all  those 
who  fell  into  the  greater  sins  after  baptism,  not  only  from  the  hope  of  re-admis- 
sion to  the  church,  but  liiccwise  from  the  hope  of  eternal  salvation.  And  they 
have  respectable  authorities  for  their  assertion,  in  writers  of  the  fourth  and  fifth 
centuries,  namely,  Eusebius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vi.  c.  43.  p.  241.)  Jerome,  (in  loviiiia- 
num,  e.  2.)  and  all  those  who  affirm  (and  there  are  many  that  do  so,)  that  No- 
vatian  discarded  and  abolished  all  penances.  But  the  more  carefully  I  examine 
the  best  and  most  reliable  documents  of  this  controversy,  the  more  certain  do  I 
feel,  that  Novatian  was  not  so  destitute  of  clemency,  and  that  those  who  so  repre- 
sent him,  attribute  to  him  a  consequence,  which  they  dadute  from  his  principles, 
but  which  he  did  not  allow.  Very  many  in  that  age  believed,  that  the  road  to 
heaven  was  open  only  to  members  of  the  church,  and  that  those  who  were 
without  the  church  must  die  with  no  hope  of  eternal  salvation ;  and  therefore 
they  baptised  Catechumens,  if  dangerously  sick,  before  the  regularly  appointed 
time;  and  they  restored  to  the  church  the  unfaithful  or  the  lapsed  Christians, 
when  alarmingly  sick,  without  any  penances  or  satisfaction,  lest  they  should 
perish  for  ever.  Our  Cijprian  decides.  (Epist.  lii.  p.  71.)  thus;  Extra  ecclesiam 
constituLus,  et  ah  unitate  aiquc  caritale  divisus,  coronari  in  morte  non  poierit.  As 
there  were  many  holding  this  doctrine,  they  must  have  reasoned  thus:  Novatian 
would  leave  the  lapsed  to  die  excluded  from  the  church:  but  there  is  no  hope 
of  salvation  to  those  out  of  the  church.  Therefore  he  excluded  the  lapsed,  not 
only  from  the  church  but  also  from  heaven.  Novatian,  however,  rejected  this 
conclusion,  and  did  not  wholly  take  from  the  lapsed  all  hope  of  making  their 
peace  with  God.  For  this  assertion,  our  first  great  authority  is  Cyprian,  who 
otherwise  exaggerates  the  Novatian  error  quite  too  much.  He  says,  (Epist.  lii. 
p.  75.)  :  O  haereticac  institutionis  inefncax  et  vana  traditio  !  hortari  ad  satisfac- 
tionis  poenitcntiam  et  subtrahere  de  satisfictione  medicinam,  dicere  fratribus 
nostris,  plange  et  lacrymas  funde,  et  diebns  ac  noctibus  ingemisce,  et  pro  ab- 
luendo  et  purgando  delicto  tuo  largiter  ct  frequenter  operare,  sed  extra  eccle- 
siam post  omnia  ista  morieris  ;  quaecunque  ad  pacem  pertinent  facies,  sed  nul- 
1am  pacem  quam  quaeris  accipies.  Quis  non  statim  pereat,  quis  non  ipsa  despe- 
ratione  deficiat,  quis  non  animum  suum  a  proposito  lamentationis  avertat?  And 
after  illustrating  these  thoughts  with  his  usual  eloquence,  he  concludes  thus: 
[p.  525.]  Quod  si  invenimus  (in  the  .scriptures,)  a  poenitentia  agenda  neminem 
debere  prohibcri  -  -  admittendus  est  plangentium  gemitus  et  poenitentiae  frnotus 
dolentibus  non  negandus.  So  then  Novatian  exhorted  sinners  ejected  from  the 
church  to  weep,  to  prny,  to  grieve  over  their  sins,  in  short  to  exercise  penitence. 
But  why  did  he  so,  if  he  believed  there  was  no  hope  of  salvation  for  the  lapsed  ? 
Undoubtedly,  he  urged  sinners  to  tears  and  penitence,  that  they  might  move 
God  to  have  compassion  on  them,  or,  as  Cyprian  expresses  it,  {ut  delictum  alu 
luerenl  et  purgareni,)  to  wash  and  purge  away  their  sin.  Therefore,  he  did  not 
close  up  heaven  against  them,  but  only  the  doors  of  the  church;  and  he  belie- 
ved, that  God  had  reserved  to  himself  the  power  of  pardoning  the  greater  sina 
committed  after  baptism.  And  this  opinion  of  their  master,  his  disciples  con- 
tiaued  to  retain.     The  Novatian  bishop  Acesius,  at  the  council  of  Nice,  in  the 


The  Novatian  Doctrines.  71 

prcsonec  of  Const;intinc  the  Great,  accordln,^  to  the  testimony  of  Socrates 
(Hist.  Eceles.  L.  i.  c.   10.  p.  39.)  thus  stated  the  doetrine  of  his  sect:  "Eti 

fAiTXVoUv  f^iV  if^uprticora;  vporptnitVy  c'X^rid'a  eTi  riif  dp'iaius  /uti  Trapa  rwi*  Itpccff^ 
dXXa    iraca    tsw    Qiiu    iKSi-)(jT^aiy    to-j    Swaf^ivou    Kai     c^owriav     tvsvTij    o-yvv/i'pjiy 

afAapr»y.aTa.  Ad  pocnitentiuin  quidem  invitniidos  esse  peecatores,  reiiiissioiiia 
vero  spem  non  a  sacerdotibus  oxpectare  debere,  verum  a  Deo,  qui  solus  jua 
potestatemquc  habct  diinittendi  peecata.  A  similar  statement  by  Asclcpiacks, 
another  Novatian  bishop,  is  found  in  Socrates,  (Ilist.  Eecles.  L.  vii.  c.  25.  p.  367.)  : 
aew  y.iva>   riiv  s-uy^dpi^a-t)/  a^aprnov   cTTiTpeirovn;.     Soli  DeO  potestatem  COIldonandi 

reliuquimus.  And  Socrates  himself,  (L.  iv.  c.  28.  p.  245.)  obviously  explains 
the  doetrine  of  Novatian  in  the  same  manner.  Let  us  now  rest  upon  these 
lucid  and  strong-  testimonies,  and  not  vainly  strive  to  enervate  them,  as  somo 
learned  men  do,  by  other  fiir  inferior  and  Jess  explicit  testimonies.  This,  how- 
ever, I  must  not  disguise,  that  from  the  very  testimonies  which  in  some  measure 
vindicate  the  Novatian  sect,  it  appears,  that  this  species  of  Christians  did  no\ 
hold  out  to  sinners  a  sure  and  undoubting  hope  of  salvation.  They  would  not 
indeed,  have  the  persons  whom  the  church  excluded,  sink  into  utter  despair;  hut, 
while  committing-  their  case  to  God  alone,  and  urging  them  to  persevere  in  their 
penitence  through  life,  they  declared  that  the  hipsed  might  hope,  but  must  not 
feel  assured,  or  that  they  were  unable  to  promise  any  thing  certain  in  regard  to 
the  judgment  of  God.  This  surely  was  sufficiently  hard  and  discouraging. 
One  utterly  uncertain  of  his  salvation,  is  not  much  happier,  than  one  who  is  in 
despair;  for  he  must  pass  his  Hie  in  continual  fear. — In  what  condition  those 
of  the  lapsed  were  placed,  whom  the  Novatians  admitted  to  penitence,  is  mani- 
fest;  they  remained  through  life  in  the  class  of  penitents.  They  could  there- 
fore be  present  at  the  public  discourses  to  the  people,  for  this  was  allowed  to 
penitents ;  and  in  a  particular  place,  distinct  from  that  of  the  faithful,  they  could 
manifest  the  sorrows  of  their  heart,  in  the  sight  of  the  brethren;  and  they  could 
live  and  converse  with  their  kindred  and  relatives :  but  from  the  common 
prayers,  and  from  the  sacred  supper,  they  remained  excluded. 

(2)  The  error  of  the  Novatians,  in  itself,  appears  to  be  of  no  great  moment, 
as  it  pertained  merely  to  the  external  discipline  of  the  church  ;  but  in  [p.  526.] 
its  consequences,  it  was  of  the  greatest  importance,  as  being  in  the  highest 
degree  adapted  to  rend  the  church,  and  to  corrupt  religion  itself.  The  Nova- 
tians did  not  dissemble,  and  conceal  these  consequences,  as  other  sects  did,  nor 
did  they  deny,  but  avowed  them  openly.  In  the  first  place,  as  they  admitted  no 
one  to  their  communion  who  had  been  guilty  of  any  great  sin  after  b:iptism, 
they  must  have  held,  that  the  visible  church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  holy 
and  innocent  persons.  And  this  principle  might  have  been  borne  with,  some- 
how, provided  they  had  allowed,  that  salvation  was  also  attainable  in  the  other 
churches,  which  permitted  sinners  to  become  reconciled  by  penitence  ;  although 
they  might  hold  its  attainment  to  be  more  difficult  than  in  the  churches  denying 
restoration  to  the  lapsed.  But  this  ihey  utterly  denied,  or  at  least,  represented 
it  as  extremely  dubious  and  uncertain.  And  by  assuming  to  themselves  the 
arrogant  title  of  Cathari,  or  the  "Pure,"  they  charged  all  the  churches  that  re- 
ceived back  transgressors,  with  defilement,  or  impurity    and,  as  we  have  just 


72  Century  III. — Section  1(>. 

heard  from  Cyprian,  tliis  impurity,  thfiy  said,  arose  from  their  intercourse  with 
sinners.  How  they  explained  this  doctrine,  is  not  stated  by  any  ancient  writer, 
nor  need  we  here  attempt  its  investigation.  Whether  they  supposed  the  viti- 
osity  of  the  guilty,  like  a  contagious  disease,  communicated  itself  to  the  inno- 
cent, or  whetlier  they  believed  this  guilt  and  pollution  to  arise  from  the  sin  of 
too  great  lenity  towards  sinners;  it  is  certain,  they  regarded  it  as  of  no  small 
moment,  and  indeed  so  great,  that  it  could  deprive  men  of  those  divine  aids 
which  are  necessary  for  the  attainment  of  salvation.  That  such  were  their  sen- 
timents, no  one  can  doubt,  if  he  considers,  that  they  regarded  the  baptisms  of 
all  the  churches  that  re-admitted  transgressors,  as  being  invalid,  and  that  they 
rebnptised  the  members  of  other  churches  that  came  over  to  them.  See  CypriaUy 
(Epist.  Ixxiii.  p.  129.)  It  was  the  almost  universal  opinion  of  that  age,  that  it 
is  by  baptism  men  obtain  forgiveness  of  sin.  on  account  of  their  faith  and  their 
profession  of  it :  but  that  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  conferred,  by  what 
they  denominated  consignation,  or  the  Confirmation  of  the  bishop.  So  taught 
Dionysius  Alexandrinus  in  Egypt,  as  appears  from  his  Epistle,  (apud  Euseh. 
Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  8.  p.  254.)  ;  so  also  Cornelius,  at  Rome  ;  and  so  likewise 
Cyprian  in  Africa,  who  uses  this  doctrine  particularly,  in  the  controversy  respect- 
ing tbe  rebaptizing  of  heretics,  of  which  we  shall  soon  have  occasion  to  speak. 
He  says,  (Epist.  Ixxiii.  p.  131.) ;  Manifestum  est  autem,  ubi  et  per  quos  remissa 
veccaioriim  dari  possit,  quae  in  hapLismo  scilicet  da'ur.  And  soon  after,  he  thus 
describes  the  effects  of  Confirmation :  Qui  in  ecclesia  baptizantur  (and  conse- 
quently have  already  obtained  remission  of  their  sins,)  praepositis  ecclesiae 
otferuntur,  et  per  nostram  orationem  et  manus  impositionem  Spiritmn  Saiictum 
[p.  527.]  consequuntur  et  Signaculo  Dominico  consummantur.  More,  to  the 
same  purpose,  may  be  found  in  this  Epistle.  I  acknowledge  it  to  be  uncertain, 
whether  Novatian  attributed  the  same  efficacy  to  episcopal  Confirmation,  as 
other  Christians  did.  Novatian  himself,  as  we  have  seen  objected  to  him  by 
Cornelius,  had  no  reverence  for  episcopal  Confirmation  ;  and  satisfied  himself 
with  baptism  only:  and  Theodoret  tells  us,  (Haeret.  Fabul.  L.  iii.  c.  5.  0pp.  tom- 
iv.  p.  229,  230.)  that  his  followers  made  no  account  of  unction  or  Confirmntion, 
and  of  course,  other  rites  accompanying  unction.  Nor  was  it,  in  my  judgment, 
a  bad  conjecture  of  Jo.  Morin,  (Comm.  de  sncris  Ordinationibus,  tom.  iii.  p.  127.) 
that  the  Novatians,  in  this  matter,  followed  the  example  of  their  master,  who 
had  contemned  the  so  called  seal  of  the  bishop.  But  concerning  baptism,  and 
its  effects,  it  clearly  appears  from  Cyprian,  (Epist.  Ixxvi.  p.  154.)  that  the 
opinion  of  Novatian  was  the  same,  as  that  of  his  adversaries:  indeed  he  must 
have  attributed  greater  efficacy  to  baptism  than  they  did  ;  and  must  have  sup- 
posed that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  imparted  by  it,  if  he  ascribed  no  virtue  to  con- 
firmation. And  therefore,  as  Novatian  denied  all  efficacy  to  the  baptisms  of  the 
Christians  who  received  the  lapsed  to  conimnnion,  he  denied  that  any  of  those 
dissentincT  from  him  had  obtained  from  God  the  pardon  of  their  sins,  or  had  re- 
ceived the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  purchased  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  But  what 
hope  of  salvation  can  be  left,  to  men  laboring  under  the  burden  of  their  sins, 
and  destitute  of  the  aids  of  the  Holy  Spirit?  And  here  I  would  have  particu- 
hirly  noticed,  that   the  lapsed,  or  those  excluded  from  the  church  for  their 


Persecution  of  Galliis.  73 

offences,  were  in  .1  better  condition,  according  to  Nomiians  d  Vctrinc,  than  thoso 
Christians  who  admitted  the  lapsed  into  their  assemblies.  For  ht  taught  the  lapsed 
to  hope  they  might  succeed  in  appeasing  God,  by  persevering  in  their  prayers 
and  tears,  and  other  acts  of  penitence:  but  thoso  Christians  who  disagreed  with 
Novatian  neglected  this,  the  only  ground  of  safety  to  them,  because  they  did 
not  suppose  that  they  had  fallen  from  a  state  of  grace;  and,  therefore,  they  had 
nothing  at  all  in  which  they  could  trust.  How  inhumnne  and  dangerous  such 
doctrines  were,  and  whither  they  tended,  I  need  not  explain  more  fully. 
Neither  is  it  necessary  here  to  admonish  those  who  may  read  the  ancient 
writers,  respecting  Novaius  and  Novalian,  to  beware  of  filling  into  their  errors; 
for  they  ofcen  confound  the  two  very  different,  but  associated  men,  being  de- 
ceived by  the  affinity  of  the  names,  Novatus  and  Novatian.  But  learned  men 
have  long  since  given  warning  on  this  point. 

§  XYII.  The  Persecution  under  Gaiius.  While  tliese  contro- 
versies among  Christians  were  rife,  in  the  year  251,  Deciiis  was 
slain,  with  his  sons ;  and  G alius  succeeded  him  in  the  govern- 
ment, with  his  son,  Volusian.  The  year  following, the  persecution 
against  the  Christians,  which  had  been  less  vigorously  prosecuted 
during  the  last  years  of  Decius^  was  renewed,  either  by  [p.  628.] 
the  publication  of  new  edicts,  or  by  the  revival  of  the  old  ones ; 
and  again  the  Christians  had  to  undergo  many  evils,  in  various 
provinces  of  the  Eoman  empire,  which,  however,  they  seem  to 
have  endured  with  more  fortitude  than  under  Decius.Q)  The  fury 
of  the  people  was  augmented  by  the  calamities  with  which  the 
Roman  empire  was  at  the  time  much  afflicted,  and  in  particular 
by  a  pestilential  disease,  which  carried  off  an  immense  number  of 
persons  in  various  parts  of  the  country.  For  it  was  supposed 
that  the  gods  inflicted  these  penalties  on  the  nations  on  account 
of  the  Christians.  This  opinion  occasioned  Cyprian  to  write  his 
tract,  ad  Demetriamim^  in  which  he  attempts  to  confute  it.(^)  This 
persecution  ceased  in  the  year  254,  when  Gallus  and  his  son  being 
slain  at  Interamnia,  Valerian,  and  his  son  GalliemiSj  were  placed 
at  the  head  of  the  Roman  empire;  for  Valerian  immediately 
restored  peace  to  the  Christian  world. 

(1)  That  Gallus  again  attacked  the  Christians,  and  renewed  the  persecution 
commenced  by  Decius,  admits  of  no  controversy.  Diojiysins  of  Ale.\andri:i, 
(apud  Euseh.  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  i.  p.  250.)  expressly  says,  that  when  Gallus 
saw  things  moving  on  according  to  his  wishes,  he  trod  in  the  steps  of  Decius, 
and  persecuted  (rot/j  hpovi  avJ'pai)  the  holy  men.  That  his  Christian  subjects  in 
Italy,  and  especially  at  Rome,  were  persecuted,  is  demonstrable  from  the  57tb 
and  58th  Epistles  of  Cyprian.    And  that  the  Christians  of  Africa  were  exposod 


74  Century  Ill.—Scctlon  17. 

to  numerous  perils,  is  manifest  from  CypriarCs  Tract,  ad  Demelrianum,  and 
from  other  testimonies.  But  it  is  not  equally  apparent,  by  what  law  or  rule  he 
would  have  proceedings  against  them  regulated;  whether  he  imitated  the  cruelty 
of  Decius,  or  directed  to  some  other  mode  of  proceeding.  Cyprian  menlions 
(Epist.  Iv.  p.  82.)  an  edict  published  at  Carthage,  respeciing  sacrifices;  and  he 
says,  that  it  occasioned  the  people  to  demand  him  to  be  cast  to  the  lions:  His 
ipsis  diebus,  has  quibus  ad  te  iitteras  feci,  ob  .sacrificia  quae  edicto  proposilo 
cclebrare  populus  jubebatur,  chimore  popuhirium  ad  leonem  denuo  posluhilus  in 
circo  fui.  But  as  Cyprian,  in  this  Epistle,  makes  no  mention  of  evils  and  I'crils 
arising  from  this  edict  to  the  Christians,  and  writes  as  if  all  was  then  quiet,  I 
can  re  dily  accord  with  the  learned  in  supposing  that  this  edict  merely  admon- 
ished the  people  to  placate  the  gods  by  sacrifices,  in  order  to  avert  the  pesti- 
lence and  other  calamities ;  and  that  it  did  not  order  a  persecution  of  the 
Christians,  In  this  opinion  I  am  confirmed  by  the  fact,  that  Cyprian  does  not 
complain  of  any  actual  sufferings,  but  only  of  the  threats  of  tiie  Gentiles :  Et 
Gentiles  et  Judaji  minaiiLur  et  haeretici.  All  things  considered,  I  am  induced  to 
[p.  529.]  believe  that  Gallus  was  not  so  cruel  and  unjust  to  the  Christians,  as 
is  commonly  supposed;  that  he  did  not,  like  Decius,  come  down  with  fury  upon 
them,  but  only  terrified  the  people  who  believed  in  Christ,  and  ordered  their 
principal  bishops  into  exile.  And  1  am  led  to  this  belief,  first,  by  the  language 
used  by  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  (apud  Euzeh.  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  1.),  who 
says  that  the  {lif-'Oi  hS'fai)  venerable  or  holy  men  were  assailed  by  him.  This 
language,  if  I  am  not  much  deceived,  denotes,  not  the  common  people,  but  the 
bishops  and  priests.  And,  as  to  the  evils  which  these  venerable  men  suffered, 
he  uses  a  mild  term,  which  seems  to  exclude  capital  punishment,  viz. :  "HXaa-sy, 
insectatus  est,  he  chased  away.  As  to  any  martyrs,  neither  he  nor  others  say 
one  word.  And  then  the  occurrences  at  Rome,  in  this  persecution,  as  they  are 
fully  stated  by  Cyprian  in  his  Epistle  to  Cornelius  (Epist.  Ivii.  p.  94,  &c.), 
strongly  confirm  this  opinion.  Cornelius,  the  bishop,  was  there  apprehended, 
and  required  to  defend  his  cause  before  the  praetor ;  and  as  soon  as  the  people 
heard  of  it,  the  greatest  part  of  them  hastened  spontaneously  to  the  judge,  and 
not  only  professed  Christ  fearlessly,  but  declared  themselves  ready  to  lay 
down  their  lives  with  their  bishop.  Prosilierat  adversarius  terrore  violento 
Christi  castra  turbare.  Sed  quo  impetu  venerat,  eodem  impetu  pulsus  et 
victus  est.  -  -  Unum  (the  bishop)  primo  aggressus,  ut  lupus  avem  secernere  a 
grege,  ut  accipiter  columbam  ab  agmine  volantium  separare  tcntavcrat.  -  -  Sed 
retusus  adunati  exercitus  fide  pariter  et  vigore,  intclh?xit  mi'.ites  Christi  vigilare 
-  -  vinci  non  posse,  mori  posse,  et  hoc  ipso  invictos  esse,  quia  mori  non  timent. 

Quale  illud  fuit  sub  oculis  Dei  spectaculum  gloriosum,  quale  in  conspectu 

Christi  ecclesia?  suae  gaudium,  ad  pugnam,  quam  tentaverat  hostis,  inferre  non 
singulos  milites,  sed  tola  simul  castra  prodiisse !  Omnes  enim  constat  ventures 
fuisse,  si  audire  potuissent,  quando  accurrerit  properanier  et  venerit  qvisquis 
audivil.  And  yet  not  one  of  this  multitude  was  either  sent  to  prison,  or  sub- 
jected to  torture,  or  put  to  death.  The  bishop  only,  Cornelius,  was  sent  into 
exile.  And  no  greater  punishment  was  inflicted  on  Lucius,  his  successor;  and, 
Buch  was  the  clemency  of  the  times,  that  he  was  soon  recalled  from  the  exile 


Persecution  of  Gallus.  75 

into  which  he  was  sent.  On  tliis  liis  rccnll,  (which  was  procured,  I  suspoct,  by 
the  money  of  Christians),  Cyprian  congratuhitcs  him  in  his  58th  Epistle  (p.  96). 
There  is,  indeed,  an  old  tradition,  supported  by  authorities  of  some  respecta- 
bility,  that  both  Cornelius  and  Lucius  were  afterwards  put  to  death.  This  tnu 
dition  I  could  resist,  if  I  were  so  disposed.  This  is  certain,  that  Cyprian's  call- 
ini>-  each  of  them,  (bealicjn.  marlyrem)  a  blessed  marhjr  (Epist.  Ixvii.  p.  117),  is 
no  solid  proof  of  this  tradition  ;  for  it  appears,  that  Cyprian  used  the  word 
martyr  in  a  broader  sense,  applying  this  honorable  title  to  the  Confessors  also. 
But,  suppose  there  was  no  doubt  of  the  violent  death  of  Cornelius  and 
Lucius,  these  two  examples  of  the  execution  of  bishops,  would  rather  [p.  530.] 
demonstrate  the  moderation  than  tlie  cruelty  of  Gallus;  since  it  is  manifest, 
from  the  Epistles  of  Cyprian  to  each  of  them,  that  no  one,  besides  them,  suf- 
fered death  at  Rome.  In  Africa,  Cyprian  lived  at  Carthage  without  fear,  dur- 
ing this  persecution  ;  although,  shortly  before,  he  had  been  demanded  by 
the  furious  populace  to  be  thrown  to  the  lions.  Neither  was  his  presence  in 
the  city  unknown  by  the  magistrates;  for  Demelrianus,  that  violent  enemy  of 
the  Christians,  to  whom  Cyprian  wrote  a  Tract,  a  man,  doubtless,  of  no  little 
authority,  and,  perhaps,  one  of  the  inferior  judges,  often  called  on  Cyprian,  and 
disputed  with  him  about  religion  ;  as  Cyprian  himself  states,  in  the  exordium 
of  his  Tract.  Neither  is  there  anything  in  his  Epistles,  from  which  it  can  be 
inferred,  that  any  Christian  in  Africa  suffered  death  under  Gallus.  It  would 
seem,  therefore,  that  only  exile  and  the  milder  punishments  were  inflicted  on 
certain  individuals.  I  acknowledge  that  the  learned  men,  who  think  Gallus 
was  no  milder  than  Decius,  have  some  show  of  arguments  for  their  opinion. 
First,  they  observe  that  Cypj-ian,  by  divine  inspiration,  predicted,  before  the 
persecution  of  Gallus  commenced,  that  there  would  be  one  of  great  magnitude 
and  turbulence.  See  his  54th  Epistle,  (ad  Cornel,  p.  79.)  :  Spiritu  Sancto  sug- 
gerente,  et  Domino  per  visiones  multas  et  manifestas  admonente,  hostis  immi- 
nere  prrenuntiatur  et  ostenditur.  .  .  Protulimus,  diem  certaminis  appropinquasse, 
hostem  violentum  cito  contra  nos  exsurgere,  pugnam,  non  talem  qualis  fuit 
(i.  e.  under  Decius)  sod  graiiorem  multo  et  acriorem  venire.  And  he  writes  the 
same  thing  in  his  5Gth  Epistle,  (ad  Thibaritanos,  p.  90.):  Nam  cum  Domini  in- 
struentis  dignatione  instigemur  saepius  et  admone  amur.  -  -  Scire  debetis  ac 
pro  certo  credere  ac  tenere,  pressurte  diem  super  caput  esse  coepisse,  et  occasum 
saeculi  atque  Antichrist!  tempus  appropinquasse.  .  .  Gravior  nunc  et  ferocior 
pugna  imminet.  But,  to  confess  the  truth,  the  prophecies  and  visions  which 
Cyprian  often  announces,  are  fallacious  and  of  dubious  credibility.  He  was  cer- 
tainly a  pious  and  good  man,  but  of  a  fervid  temperament,  and  not  sufficiently 
governed  by  reason  ;  and  he  often  rashly  supposed  the  suggestions  of  his  ex- 
cited imagination  to  be  dictated  to  him  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  To  demonstrate 
this  by  examples  from  his  life  and  Epistles,  cannot  be  necessary,  since  tiiis  very 
prophecy  of  an  impending,  direful  persecution,  manifests  its  human  origin  and 
its  falsity.  He  predicts,  not  only  greater  evils  than  under  Decius,  but  likewise 
(occasum  sccculi  et  Antichristi  tempus)  the  coming  of  AntirJirisi  and  tite  end  (f 
the  world:  and  even  those  who  may  account  him  the  greatest  of  projlu'ts  in 
other  things,  must  admit,  that  he  was  here  cgregiously  mistaken.    And  when  a 


76  Century  TIL— Section  17. 

part  of  the  prediction  has  been  confuted  by  the  event,  it  cannot  be  doubtful 
how  the  whole  of  it  is  to  be  regarded.  Moreover,  Cyprian  himself  frankly 
owns,  that  his  predictions  and  vii^ions  were  ridiculed  by  many,  (Epist.  Ixix.  p. 
124.)  :  Qamquam  seiam  somnia  ridicula  et  vaticinationes  ineptas  quibusdam 
videri,  sed  utiquc  illis,  qui  nialunt  contra  sacordotes  credere,  quam  sacerdoti. 
With  these  people  he  is  very  angry,  but  I  consider  them  not  so  wild  in 
[p.  531.]  their  opinions  as  he  judged  them  to  be.  But  a  stronger  support  to 
those  who  think  Gallus  was  as  cruel  to  the  Christians  as  Decius,  is  derived 
from  Cyprian's  Tract,  ad  DemaLrianum.  That  this  tract  was  written  in  the 
reign  of  Gallus,  can  be  shown  by  many  unexceptionable  proofs ;  and  in  it  the 
writer  bitterly  complains  of  the  very  great  wrongs  suffered  by  the  Christians. 
lie  says,  (c.  xii.  p.  2'20.)  :  Innoxios,  justos,  Deo  caros  domo  privas,  patrimonio 
spolias,  catenis  premis,  carcere  includis,  gladio,  hesiiis,  ignibus  punis.  Nee  saltern 
contentus  es  dolorum  nostrorum  compendio  et  simplici  ac  veloci  brevitate 
poenarum.  Admoves  laniandis  corporibus  longa  tormenta,  multiplicas  laceran- 
dis  visceribus  numerosa  supplicia,  nee  feritas  atquc  immanitas  tua  usitaiis 
potest  contenta  esse  tormentis ;  excogitat  novas  pa3nns  ingeniosa  erudelitas. 
Now,  if  all  these  things  occurred  at  the  time  Cyprian  was  writing  that  Tract, 
it  must  be  acknowledged,  that  the  times  of  Gallus  were  not  more  happy  than 
those  of  Decius.  But  it  must  be  remembered,  that  Cyprian  plays  the  orator  in 
this  book,  nnd  rather  declames  than  teaches  or  discusses.  And  hence  we  are 
not  obliged  to  consider  all  that  he  states  respecting  the  sufferings  of  Christians, 
as  then  taking  place  before  him,  or  as  occurring  at  the  very  time  he  wrote.  He 
is  speaking,  generally,  of  the  injustice  and  cruelty  of  the  Roman  governors  and 
magistrates ;  and,  therefore,  the  things  he  states  may  fiiirly  be  referred  to  the 
previous  times  of  Decius.  Orators  are  wont  to  speak  of  things  of  recent  oc- 
currence, and  things  alvvays  to  be  feared,  as  if  they  saw  them.  And  that  this  is 
no  groundless  conjecture,  but  a  correct  interpretation  of  the  passage,  appears 
from  the  fact,  that  in  his  Epistles,  written  about  the  same  time,  Cyprian  makes 
no  mention  at  all  of  the  sufferings  of  his  people.  Besides,  the  undisturbed 
quiet  which  he  himself  enjoyed,  while  writing  that  Tract,  is  evidence  that  the 
Christians  were  not  then  struggling  under  any  great  evils. 

(2)  At  that  time  a  very  destructive  and  inveterate  pestilence  afflicted  a  large 
part  of  the  Roman  empire ;  and  it  was  accompanied  by  other  great  calamities. 
Therefore,  as  was  usual  for  the  idolaters,  many  persons  in  x\frica  declared  the 
Christians  to  be  the  cause  of  these  great  calamities.  Among  them  there  was, 
in  particular,  one  Demelrianus.  And,  as  he  often  called  on  Cyprian  to  dispute 
with  him,  and  continued  to  repeat  this  accusation,  Cyprian  undertook  to  refute 
it  in  an  appropriate  Tract.  Near  the  beginning  of  this  Tract,  (ad  Demetrianum, 
c.  2.),  he  says:  Cum  dicas  plurimos  conqueri,  quod  bella  crebrius  surgant,  quod 
lues,  quod  fjimes  sseviant,  quodque  imbres  et  pluvias  serena  longa  snspendant, 
nobis  imputari,  tacere  ultra  non  oportet,  ne  -  -  dum  criminationes  falsas  con- 
temnimus  refutare,  videamur  crimen  agnoscere.  -  -  Dixisti  per  nos  fieri  et  quod 
nobis  debeant  imputari  omnia  ista,  quibus  nunc  mundus  quatitur  et  urgetur, 
quod  Dii  vestri  a  nobis  non  colantur.  Hence,  as  before  stated,  when  the  people 
of  Carthage  were  admonished  by  the  edict  of  the  proconsul  to  appease  the 


Persecution  of  G alius.  77 

anger  of  the  gods  with  sacrifices,  they  immediately  dcmanaed  that  Cypiian,  the 
Christian  bishop,  sliould  be  cast  to  the  lions;  because  they  believed  [p.  532.] 
that  this  man,  and  the  community  of  Christians  over  which  he  presided,  were 
the  causes  of  their  calamities,  and  that  sacrifices  and  supplications  would  be 
fruitless,  unless  these  enemies  of  the  gods  were  put  out  of  the  way. — In  this 
discussion,  Cyprian  is  often  eloquent  and  ingenious,  but  he  is  not  always  solid. 
With  regard  to  tiiis  Demelrian,  who  so  foolishly  assailed  the  Christians,  learned 
men  suppose  him  to  have  been  a  man  of  very  high  rank,  perhaps  the  proconsul 
of  Africa ;  and  they  infer  this  from  Cyprian's  accusing  him  of  inflicting  many 
wrongs  on  the  Christians,  and  manifesting  great  cruelty.  We  have  already,  in 
the  preceding  note,  exhibited  a  part  of  this  accusation.  But,  as  before  stated, 
Cyprian,  throughout  this  Tract,  discourses  in  the  style  of  an  orator;  and,  there- 
fore, wliat  he  seems  to  charge  upon  Demetrian,  personally,  may  fairly  be  referred 
to  the  Roman  judges  and  magistrates  generally.  When  I  read  over  the  exordium 
of  the  Tract,  he  does  not  appear  to  me  so  great  a  man  as  he  does  to  these 
learned  gentlemen.  Cyprian  does  not  address  him  in  a  modest  and  respectful 
manner,  such  as  all  persons  should  employ,  in  their  intercourse  with  men  of 
very  high  rank,  and  especially  with  the  vicegerents  of  the  supreme  ruler ;  but 
he  bursts  forth  in  a  strain  of  unbridled  reproach  and  contumely :  Oblatrantem 
te  et  adversus  Deum  ore  sacrilego  et  verbis  impiis  obstrepentem  frequenter, 
Demetriane,  contemseram,  verecundius  ac  melius  existimans  errantis  imperitiam 
eilentio  spernere,  quam  loquendo  dementis  insaniara  provocare.  What  an  accu- 
mulation of  reproachful  terms  are  in  these  few  words  ?  Who  can  think  that 
Cyprian  would  be  so  delirious  as  to  compare  a  proconsul,  or  governor,  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  emperor,  a  man  who  held  the  power  of  life  and  death,  with  a 
barking  cur,  and  to  call  him  sacriUgiou%  i?npious,  ignorant,  stupid,  insane  1 
Cyprian,  although  he  was  of  a  vehement  temperament,  could  admirably  curb 
his  impetuosity,  and  restrain  his  passions,  when  occasion  required  or  danger 
threatened ;  as  appears  from  his  Epistles.  And  who  does  not  know  that  the 
ancient  Christians,  after  the  example  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  approached 
magistrates  of  all  ranks  with  great  caution  and  respect  ?  Neither  let  any  one 
imagine  that  these  expressions  may  have  escaped  from  Cyprian  through  inad- 
vertence, and  that  in  the  progress  of  the  discussion,  their  harshness  is  corrected 
by  milder  and  more  gentle  language.  He  proceeds  with  the  same  virulence 
with  which  he  commenced,  and  heaps  on  his  adversary  all  the  reproaches  which 
an  exasperated  mind  is  prone  to  dictate.  Scarcely  had  he  uttered  what  was 
just  cited,  when  he  adds,  that  Demetrian  was  one  of  the  dogs  and  swine  to 
which  Christ  had  forbidden  the  casting  of  what  is  holy.  A  little  farther  on,  he 
terms  him  rahid,  blind,  deaf,  brutish ;  Labor  irrltus,  ofTerre  lucem  caco,  sermonem 
surdo,  sapientiam  bruto.  Nor  do  these  suffice  :  Demetrian  is  still  further  com- 
plimented with  the  terms,  raging  and  impious.  He  says :  Conticui,  cum  nee 
docere  indocilem  possem,  nee  impium  religione  comprimere,  nee  farenteyn  leni- 
tate  cohibere.  And  many  more  such  flowers  of  rhetoric  might  be  gathered  from 
this  Tract.  Undoubtedly,  those  eminent  men,  Baronius,  Pearson,  Tillc- 
mont,  and  others,  must  have  read  these  passages;  yet,  it  io  strange  that  [p.  533.] 
they  could  have   read   them,  and  yet   believe   Demetrian  to   have  been  the 


78  Century  III.— Section  18. 

governor  or  proconsul  of  Africa ;  or,  at  least,  a  magistmte  of  very  high  rank. 
Either  Demctrian  could  not  have  been  a  man  of  such  higli  rank,  or  Cyprian,  in 
assailing  hin)  as  a  man  of  no  character  or  worth,  lacked  common  sense,  and  had 
not  the  full  use  of  his  reason.  But  these  worthy  men  supposed,  they  were 
obliged  to  consider  Demetrian  so  honorable  a  man,  because  they  believed  that 
those  great  sufferings  of  the  Christians  which  Cyprian  deplores,  all  proceeded 
from  Demetrian :  and  if  this  had  been  the  fact,  then,  doubtless,  he  must  have 
been  the  supreme  judge  and  proconsul.  We  have  above  cited  the  leading  accu- 
sations of  Cyprian,  at  the  same  time  observing,  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  refer 
them  to  Demetrian,  personally,  because  the  language  of  rhetoricians  will  admit 
of  a  laxer  interpretation.  As  to  my  own  views,  I  suspect  that  this  adversary  of 
Cyprian,  was  a  man  of  the  same  occupation  and  rank  with  Cyprian,  before  his 
conversion,  that  is,  a  Rhetorician  or  Teacher  of  Eloquence  at  Carthage.  A 
Philosopher  I  would  not  venture  to  call  him,  because  he  supposed  the  gods  had 
afflicted  the  human  race  with  pestilence,  war,  and  famine,  on  account  of  the 
Christians ;  an  opinion  incongruous  with  the  views  of  a  philosopher.  He  lived 
in  intimacy  with  Cyprian,  visiting  him  quite  frequently,  and  discussing  religious 
subjects  with  him.  But  it  is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  this  intimacy  commenced 
after  Cyprian  abandoned  superstition  and  became  a  Christian.  I  therefore  sup- 
pose they  became  intimate  at  the  time  when  Cyprian  taught  eloquence  at 
Carthage.  The  similarity  of  their  pursuits,  perhaps,  brought  them  to  associate 
together,  and  the  bond  which  united  them  could  not  be  entirely  severed  by  the 
change  of  religion  in  Cyprian.  This  fact,  moreover,  of  the  intimacy  existing  be- 
tween these  two  men,  appears  to  me  to  afford  a  strong  argument  against  the 
opinion,  that  Demctrian  governed  Africa  as  the  proconsul.  For  who  that  is 
well  acquainted  with  Roman  and  Christian  affairs,  will  believe,  that  a  proconsul, 
the  governor  of  a  province,  who  was  bound  by  the  emperor's  mandate  to  per- 
secute the  Christians,  would  pay  frequent  friendly  visits  to  a  Christian  bishop, 
and  converse  and  dispute  with  him  familiarly  on  religious  subjects  ?  Between 
Christians,  and  especially  between  Christian  bishops  and  persons  of  such  an 
exalted  station,  there  must  have  been  as  great  discord  as,  to  use  the  words  of 
Horace,  {lupis  et  agnis  quanta  sortilo  contigii,)  "naturally  exists  between  wolves 
and  lambs." 

§  XVIII.  Disputes  respecting  the  Baptisms  of  Heretics.  This  ex- 
ternal tranquillity  gave  rise  to  internal  conflicts  among  Chris- 
tians, now  persons  should  be  treated  who  left  heretical  congre- 
gations, and  came  over  to  the  Catholics,  had  never  been 
determined  by  any  general  rules.  Hence  some,  both  in  the  East, 
and  in  Africa,  and  elsewhere,  placed  reclaimed  heretics  in  the 
class  of  Catechumens ;  and,  though  already  baptized,  received 
[p.  534.]  them  into  the  church  by  a  second  baptism.  But  the 
greater  part  of  the  Europeans  considered  the  baptisms  of  errone- 
ous churches  as  conveying  forgiveness  of  sins  for  Christ's  sake, 


Baptisms   h'j   Heretics,  79 

and  therefore  they  received  the  heretics  who  came  over  to  them, 
solely  by  the  imposition  of  hands  and  prayers.(')  This  dillcrence 
of  practice,  however,  had  not  hitherto  prevented  their  having 
fraternal  intercourse.  The  Asiatic  Christians,  in  councils  held  at 
times  not  ascertained,  in  Iconium,  Synnada,  and  other  places, 
changed  their  former  usage  into  an  established  law,  by  enacting, 
that  all  heretics  coming  over  to  the  true  church,  should  be  puri- 
fied by  a  second  baptism.  On  learning  this,  Stephen^  bisliop  of 
Rome,  esteeming  the  other  custom  more  sacred,  and  as  being 
derived  from  the  Apostles,  excluded  those  oriental  Christians 
from  the  communion  of  the  Romish  church,  but  not  from  the 
church  universal.  Nevertheless,  Cyprian^  after  consultation  with 
certain  African  bishops,  in  a  council  held  at  Carthage,  assentea 
to  the  oriental  doctrine,  to  which  many  of  the  Africans  had  long 
been  adherents;  and  this  he  signified,  though  modestly,  to 
Stephen.  But  so  offended  v.^as  Stephen,  that  he  not  only  gave 
Cyprian  a  severe  reprimand,  but  when  Cyprian  replied  with  firm- 
ness, and  by  a  unanimous  vote  in  a  second  council  at  Carthage, 
pronounced  the  baptisms  of  all  heretics  destitute  of  any  efficacy, 
Stephen  declared  him  and  the  African  bishops  unworthy  of  the 
name  of  Brethren,  and  loaded  them  with  severe  reproaches.  An 
end  was  put  to  this  contest,  partly  by  the  prudence  of  the  Afri- 
cans, who  were  unwilling  to  render  evil  for  evil,  and  partly  bj 
the  death  of  Stephen,  and  the  occurrence  of  a  ncAv  persecution 
under  Valerian  ;  each  party  persevering  in  its  opinions.(') 

(1)  These  facts  we  learn  from  several  sources,  but  the  most  clearly  from 
Eusehius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  2.  p.  251.  and  c.  7.  p.  253,  254).  Those  who 
disagreed  on  this  subject,  all  admitted  that  persons  received  the  pardon  of  tho 
sins  of  their  past  lives  by  baptism,  on  account  of  that  foith  in  Christ  Jesus  which 
the  candidates  for  baptism  professed  ;  but  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  conferred  by 
the  bishop's  imposition  of  hands  and  prayers.  As  I  have  already  stated,  such  was 
the  common  opinion  of  that  age.  Those,  therefore,  who  received  heretics  with- 
out re-baptizing  them,  believed  that  the  persons  baptized  among  heretics,  had 
received  remission  of  their  sins,  because  they  had  professed  Christ,  and  had  been 
baptized  in  his  words  or  in  his  name;  but  they  denied  that  such  persons  were  en- 
dowed with  the  Holy  Spirit,  because  the  heretical  leaders  and  bishops  [p.  535.] 
were  destitute  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  therefore  could  not  communicate  the 
gifts  of  the  Spirit  to  others.  And,  of  course,  they  delivered  over  such  persons 
to  the  bishops  to  be  confirmed  or  sealed.  But  those  who  rejected  the  bai)tism9 
of  heretics,  and  re-baptized  the  persons  baptized  among  them,  maintained,  that 


80  Century  III.— Section    18. 

none  but  a  pure  and  true  faith  was  by  God  deemed  a  proper  ground  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins ;  and,  as  the  heretics  taught  their  people  to  profess  a  corrupt 
and  false  faith  at  baptism,  no  remission  of  sins  could  be  expected  from  such 
baptism.  This  argument  is  pursued  at  great  length  by  Cyprian^  (Epist.  Ixxiii. 
ad  Jubaianum,  p.  130).  I  will  quote  a  few  sentences  to  illustrate  and  contirra 
what  I  have  said.  The  reasoning  of  those  disagreeing  with  him,  he  thus  states, 
(c.  4.)  :  Qua3rendum  non  est  quis  baptizaverit,  quando  is,  qui  baptizatus  est,  ac- 
cipere  remissam  peccatorum  potuit  secundum  quod  credidit :  i.  e.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  enquire  who  administered  the  baptism,  seeing  the  person  received 
remission  of  his  sins,  on  the  ground  of  the  faith  in  Christ  which  he  professed. 
He  then  replies  to  this  reasoning  at  considerable  length  ;  and,  among  other 
things,  he  says,  (c.  5.)  :  Quomodo  potest  videri,  qui  apud  illos  baptizatur,  con- 
secutus  esse  peccatorum  remissam  et  divinai  iiidulgentiae  gratiam  per  suam 
fidem,  qui  ipsius  fidei  non  habuerit  veritatem  ?  Si  enim,  sicut  quibusdam 
videtur,  secundum  fidem  suam  quis  accipere  aliquid  foris  extra  ecclesiam  potuit, 
utique  id  accepit,  quod  credidit.  Falsum  autem  credens  verum  accipere  non 
potuit,  sed  potius  adultera  et  profana,  secundum  quod  credebat,  accepit.  -  - 
(c.  6.)  :  Quod  si  secundum  pravam  fidem  baptizari  aliquis  foris  et  remissam 
peccatorum  consequi  potuit,  secundum  candem  fidem  consequi  et  Spiritum 
sanctum  potuit,  et  non  est  necesse,  ei  venienti  manum  imponi,  ut  Spiritum 
sanctum  consequatur  et  signetur.  Aut  utrumque  enim  fide  sua  foris  consequi 
potuit,  aut  neutrum  eorum,  qui  foris  fuerat,  accepit.  The  theology  of  the  early 
divines,  who  lived  before  the  times  of  Constant! ne,  if  viewed  generally,  did  not 
differ  from  ours;  but  viewed  particularly,  and  with  impartiality,  it  differed 
wonderfully.  Nor  will  this  appear  strange  to  a  person  acquainted  with  anti- 
quity. For  the  few  doctrines  which  make  up  the  sum  of  the  Christian  religion, 
had  not  then  been  inculcated,  so  to  speak,  after  being  subjected  to  a  manipu- 
lation,  and  legitimately  defined  and  inclosed  in  determinate  formulas  of  lan- 
guage ;  and,  therefore,  the  individual  doctors  explained  them  as  they  judged 
proper.  And  the  explanation  which  commended  itself  to  a  man  of  some  influ- 
ence and  ingenuity,  ^^^as  approved  by  many  others  who  were  less  learned,  just 
as  at  the  present  day ;  and  so  it  passed  for  the  common  doctrine  of  the  whole 
church. 

(2)  The  history  of  the  controversy  between  the  Roman  bishop,  Stephen,  and 
certain  African  and  Asiatic  bishops,  respecting  the  efficacy  of  the  baptisms  of 
heretics,  the  writers  belonging  to  the  Romish  church  labor  with  all  their  might 
to  pervert  and  involve  in  obscurity.  For  since  it  affords  the  most  lucid  docu- 
ments, from  which  it  can  be  proved  that  the  power  of  the  Romish  bishop, 
although  he  held  a  very  conspicuous  rank  among  the  Christian  prelates,  was  yet 
[p.  536.]  very  small  in  that  age,  and  that  his  decisions  were  disregarded  and  re- 
pudiated with  the  utmost  freedom;  these  writers  jumble  up  and  confuse  every 
thing,  partly  by  idle  conjecture,  and  partly  by  violently  wresting  the  meaning 
of  the  ancients,  lest,  as  is  abundantly  manifest,  the  truth  should  too  clearly 
shine  out  and  arrest  attention.  One  of  them,  perceiving  clearly  that  by  such 
artifices  the  truth  might  be  disguised,  but  could  not  be  extinguished,  concluded 
to  cut  the  inexplicable  knot,  like  Alexander,  which  the  patrons  of  the  Roman 


Baptisms    brj   Heretics.  81 

Pontiff  could  not  untie  ;  or,  to  apply  tlie  sponge,  ns  Augustus  to  his  Ajnx,  to 
all  the  most  important  documents  of  this  contest  that  have  reached  us.  1  refer 
to  Rayjmindus  Alissorius,  a  Franciscan  friar,  who,  in  a  book  appropriately  on 
the  subject,  (printed  at  Venice,  1733,  4to.)  attempted  to  prove  that  the  Epistles 
of  Firmilian  and  Cyprian,  in  which  they  censure  the  decision  of  Stej)hen,  and 
some  other  works,  were  forgeries  got  up  by  the  African  Donatists.  But  this 
astonishing  temerity  has  been  met  and  rebuked  as  it  deserved,  by  our  Jo.  Geo. 
Wahli,  in  a  Dissert,  printed  at  Jena,  in  1738,  and  by  Jo.  Henry  iSbaraka,  an  ad- 
herent to  the  Roman  Pontiff,  in  a  very  learned  work  printed  at  Bologna,  1741, 
4to.  With  the  single  exception  of  Jo.  Launoi,  who  boldly  lays  open  this  contest, 
although  more  spiritedly  in  some  respects  than  was  necessary,  (in  his  loth 
Epistle,  addressed  to  Ja.  Boileau  ;)  the  Romish  writers,  who  otherwise  hold 
moderate  opinions  of  the  dignity  and  authority  of  the  Roman  Pontiff",  yet  study 
to  give  some  coloring  to  this  history,  and  to  extenuate  the  vehemence  of  the 
disputants,  especially  of  Stephen,  lest  they  should  appear  to  judge  the  bishop 
of  the  first  see  in  Christendom  with  too  much  harshness.  Those  who  are  sepa- 
rated from  the  Romish  church,  exhibit  greater  fidelity  in  their  treatment  of  this 
controversy.  And  yet  I  would  not  deny,  that  they  sometimes  go  too  far,  and 
are  especially  faulty  in  this,  that  they  make  Cyprian  to  have  been  the  author  of 
the  contest.  Into  this  opinion  they  were  led  by  Eusehius,  who  tells  us,  (Hist. 
Eccles.  L.  vii.  e.  3;  p.  251.)  that  Cyprian  first  condemned  the  baptisms  of  here- 
tics ;  and  yet,  he  himself  subsequently  refutes  that  assertion.  It  is  most  fully 
attested,  in  my  view,  that  the  Asiatic  bishops  gave  occasion  for  this  contest  by 
tiieir  decrees,  and  that  Slephen  was  in  conflict  with  them  before  Cyprian  took 
up  the  subject 

So  long  as  the  Apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  lived,  there  were  either  no  sects  of 
heretics,  or  only  such  as  were  very  small  and  obscure.  Hence  they  established 
no  rules  respecting  the  effects  of  baptism  by  heretics,  nor  did  they  determine  in 
what  manner  churches  should  receive  those  who  came  over  to  them  from  the 
heretics.  But  in  the  second  century,  when  by  degrees  various  sects  of  cor- 
rupters of  the  ancient  religion  arose,  and  often  individuals  abandoned  them  and 
came  over  to  the  orthodox,  the  question  naturally  arose,  whether  these  in- 
dividuals were  to  be  considered  as  already  members  of  the  church,  or  as  aliens? 
Whether  they  were  to  be  initiated  by  baptism,  or  were  to  be  considered  as  al- 
ready initiated  ?  And  that  there  was  no  uniformity  of  sentiment  on  [p.  537.] 
this  subject,  might  easily  be  shown,  if  it  were  necessary.  Nor  could  there  be 
uniformity  in  that  age,  when  no  one  arrogated  to  himself  the  office  of  judge  and 
legislator  among  Christians,  and  when  assemblies  of  the  whole  church  could 
not  be  convened,  and  the  heretical  sects  w^ere  of  different  characters,  some  bet- 
ter, and  some  worse.  The  Romans,  whom  the  other  Europeans  followed,  seem 
to  have  always  held,  that  reclaimed  heretics,  who  had  been  already  baptized  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  did  not  need  a  second  baptism.  In  Asia  and  Africa, 
some  received  heretics  without  baptizing  them,  while  others  held  that  they 
must  be  baptized  ;  and  each  bishop  followed  his  own  judgment.  In  the  third 
century,  the  heretical  churches  being  greatly  multiplied  and  amplified,  tliis 
question  was  perpetually  coming  up,  and  calling  forth  deliberation  and  dis- 

VOL.    IL  7 


82  Centurij  III— Section  IB. 

cussion.  For  the  custom  of  holding  councils  having  first  originated  in  Greece, 
as  lias  been  ah-eady  shown,  and  quickly  extending  itself  over  the  Christian  com- 
monwealth, those  things  which  had  before  been  left  to  the  discretion  of  indivi- 
dual bisiiops,  were  brought  under  public  discussion,  and  were  determined  by 
the  suffrngcs  of  the  bishops.  Some  dissension  on  this  subject  having  arisen  in 
Africa,  at  the  commencement  of  this  century,  Agrippinus,  the  bishop  of  Car- 
thage, called  a  council,  in  which  it  was  decided,  as  Cyprian  informs  us,  (Epist. 
Ixxi.  p.  127,  and  Epist.  Ixxiii.  p.  130.)  ;  Baptizandos  esse,  qui  ah  hccrelicis  ad  ec- 
clesiam  xcniunl:  Persons  coming  over  to  the  church  from  the  heretics,  are  to 
be  baptized.  Many  of  the  African  bishops  followed  this  decision,  but  not  all, 
as  appears  from  these  Epistles  of  Cyprian,  and  as  will  be  manifest  from  what 
will  soon  be  stated.  Besides,  what  need  was  there  of  new  councils  and  de- 
liberations, if  all  the  bishops  of  Africa  had  been  obedient  to  the  decision  of 
Agrippinus  ?  With  the  modesty  which  characterized  the  early  bishops,  Agrip- 
pinus  and  his  associates  had  uttered  their  opinion,  but  not  enacted  a  laio.  And 
the  African  church,  as  will  soon  be  shown,  had  always  regarded  this  as  an  open 
question,  concerning  which  either  side  might  be  advocated,  without  danger  to 
religion  or  to  fraternal  harmony.  But,  in  process  of  time,  when  the  minds  of 
the  Asiatic  bishops  became  divided  on  this  subject,  and  especially  when  dubi- 
tation  arose  about  the  baptisms  of  the  Montanists,  many  of  them  assembled  at 
Iconium  and  Sennnda,  cities  of  Phrygia,  and  in  other  places,  and  after  mature 
deliberation,  unanimously  decided,  that  heretics  coming  over  to  the  church 
ought  to  be  again  baptized.  The  fullest  witness  to  this  fact  is  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria,  (apud  Easebium,  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  7 ;  p.  254).  Concerning  the 
council  at  Iconium,  in  particular,  Firmilian,  the  bishop  of  Caesarea,  in  Cappa- 
docia,  gives  testimony  in  his  Epistle,  printed  with  those  of  Cyprian,  (Epist.  Ixxv. 
p.  145).  All  these  proceedings  either  remained  unknown  at  Rome,  or,  which 
is  more  probable,  were  considered  of  so  little  importance,  aa  to  be  overlooked. 
But  after  many  years,  when  Stephen  was  at  the  head  of  the  Romish  church,  the 
scene  changed,  and  w^hat  had  been  regarded  as  free  and  harmless  at  Rome,  as- 
sumed the  nature  of  a  crime.  What  occasioned  this  change,  none  of  iho  ancients 
[p.  538.]  has  informed  us.  But  it  is  most  probable,  that  in  the  time  of  Stephen, 
a  contest  respecting  the  baptisms  of  heretics  arose  at  Rome  also  ;  and  that  there 
were  some  there  vvho  maintained,  that  heretics  ought  not  to  be  received  without 
a  new  baptism,  as  was  the  custom  of  the  church  of  Rome.  Perhaps  these  per- 
sons had  come  from  the  East,  and  contended  that  the  rule  in  their  country  \va» 
preferable  to  that  followed  at  Rome.  But  Slephen,  believing  the  Romish  custom 
to  be  derived  from  the  apostles,  not  only  decided  that  it  should  be  retained,  but 
also  that  the  Asiatic  churches,  by  following  a  different  rule,  were  cherishing  a 
great  eiTor.  To  reclaim  his  eastern  brethren  from  this  error,  he  wrote  thera  a 
letter ;  and,  as  they  would  not  obey  him,  but  defended  their  own  opinions,  he 
excluded  them  from  his  communion,  and  from  the  brotherhood  of  the  Romish 
church.  Those  are  mistaken,  who  suppose  that  these  Asiatic  Christians,  and 
subsequently  the  African,  were  by  Stephen  excommunicated  from  the  church.  In 
tliat  age  the  Romish  bishop  did  not  claim  to  have  so  much  power,  as  to  think 
he  could  eject  others  from  communion  in  the  universal  church ;  nor  did  any 


Baptisms    by   Heretics.  83 

one  hold  the  opinion,  that  the  persons  whom  the  Romish  hishop  excluded  from 
the  communion  of /i/.v  church,  forfeited  their  privile^ires  tin-oufrliout  the  Christian 
world.  These  opinions  first  originated  long  ulterwards.  But  at  that  period, 
each  individual  bishop  could  exclude  from  his  communion,  or  pronounce  un- 
worthy of  the  privileges  of  fraternal  embrace,  all  those  whom  he,  either  justly 
or  erroneously,  judged  to  be  contaminated  with  gross  sins,  or  guilty  of  any  con- 
duct inconsistent  witii  the  ohligations  of  a  Christian  teacher.  But  his  judgment, 
every  one  was  at  liberty  to  follow  or  to  reject,  as  he  saw  fit.  By  this  rule  Cy- 
friaii  acted ;  by  this  Victor  of  Rome ;  by  this  IStephen  ;  and  by  this  many  others 
in  that  ago.  Moreover,  it  is  very  incorrect  to  call  these  private  decisions  excom- 
municalions ;  and  to  say,  e.  g.  that  Stephen  excommunicated  Cyprian :  for  the 
two  expressions,  to  excommunicate,  and  to  deprive  one  of  our  communion^  are  of 
very  ditierent  import. — But  to  return  to  Stephen  :  Respecting  his  unkind  con- 
duct towards  the  Asiatics,  these  few  things  only  arc  preserved  in  the  Epistle  of 
Dionysius  Alexandrinus,  by  Euscbius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  e.  5  ;  p.  252.) : 
'ETrtcTaf^Kti  /utv  oiiv  Trponpiv  xat  Trtpl  E*Atvoy  nai  Trtpl  <I>ipfAtKixvou  x.ai  TrdvToiv  Tc3y 
TS  OTo  TWf  KiKlKiic  x.xi  KawaS'oH.iai  nal  ysLhATi^i  xai  vavroju  rai(/  e^H?  ofAcpouvTcyTf 
eS-KaJv,     w;     cvS'i     EHiivots    KOiveevii^cev     i  la     t«v     du^h     ruuniv     diTiav,    iTrnS^i}    Tcuf 

fnfiTiKuvi  {pitTiv)  dvu.0x?rTi^ouo-i.  Antea  quidem  (Stephanus)  litteras  scripserat 
de  Heleno  et  de  Firmiliano,  de  omnibus  denique  episcopis  per  Ciliciam,  Cappa/- 
dociam,  cunclasquc  linitimas  provincias  constitutis,  sesc  ob  earn  caussam  ab 
illorum  communiune  discessum,  quod  ha3reticos  rebaptisarent.  On  this  passage, 
Valesius  (Adnot.  ad  Euseb.  p.  141.)  puts  a  milder  construction,  by  supposing 
that  Stephen  did  not  actually  break  off  communion  with  the  Orientals,  but  only 
threatened  to  do  it,  and  never  carried  his  threats  into  execution;  and  this  opinion 
is  embraced  by  several  learned  writers  among  the  Romanists,  who  would,  as  far 
as  possible,  excuse  the  outrageous  conduct  of  Stephen.  But,  without  insisting 
that  the  language  of  the  passage  will  not  admit  so  mild  an  interpretation,  there 
is  now  extant  a  testimony  above  all  exception,  that  Stephen  actually  [p.  539.] 
did  break  communion,  not  only  with  the  Africans,  but  also  previously  with  the 
Orientals  and  others.  I  refer  to  the  Epistle  respecting  this  controversy,  written 
by  Firmilian  (one  of  those  bishops  whom  Stephen  condemned,)  to  Cyprian, 
and  published  among  Cyprian's  Epistles,  (Epist.  Ixxv.).  In  the  first  place,  this 
whole  epistle  is  hostile  in  its  tone,  and  shows,  that  at  the  time  it  was  written, 
harmony  between  Stephen  and  Firmilian^  and  his  associates,  was  wrent  and  dis- 
sipated ;  for  Firmilian  does  not  condescend  to  give  Stephen  the  ordinary  title 
of  brother,  but  assails  him  as  an  enemy  and  an  adversary,  with  contumelious 
language.  Had  Stephen  merely  threatened  to  break  friendship  with  him,  Fir- 
milian should,  and  would  have  used  very  different  language  respecting  him. 
Secondlij.not  far  from  the  end  of  the  Epistle,  (c.  24.)  Firmilian  most  manifestly 
represents,  that  Stephen  had  declared  war,  not  only  against  the  African 
churches,  but  also  against  many  others,  and  among  them  against  the  Oriental ; 
for  he  thus  addresses  him  :  Lites  et  dissensiones  quantas  parasti  per  ecctesias 
toiius  mundi  1  Peccatum  vero  quam  magnum  tibi  exaggerasti,  quando  te  a  tot 
gregibus  scidisii  ?  Excidisti  enim  te  ipsum.  Noli  te  fallere.  Siquidem  ille  est 
vere  schismaticus,  qui  se  a  communione  ecclesiasticcc  unitatis  apnstalam  fecerit. 


84  Century  III— Section  18. 

Dum  enim  putas  omncs  a  to  abstincri  posse,  solum  to  nb  omnibus  abslinuisti. 
-  -  (c.  25)  Quid  enim  humilius  aut  lenius,  quam  cum  iol  episcopis  per  tolum 
miindum  disscnsisse  ?  Pacem  cum  singulis  vario  discordias  genere  rumpeniern, 
modo  cum  Oricnlalibus,  (so  tlien  fraternal  intercourse  with  the  Orientals  was 
actually  suspended,  and  not  merely  threatened,)  quod  nee  vos  latere  confidimus, 
modo  vobiscum,  qui  in  meridie  estis. — Whether  the  Asiatics  retaliated  the 
injury  they  had  received  from  Stephen,  and  in  like  manner  excluded  him  from 
their  fraternal  love,  is  found  nowhere  stated.  But  this  Epistle  of  Firniilian,  so 
full  of  gall  and  excessive  bitterness,  renders  it  most  probable  they  did  so.  For 
if  the  Asiatics  had  remained  friendly  and  patient  under  the  outpoured  indig- 
nation of  Stephen,  this  very  influential  and  dignified  man  would  have  expressed 
his  views  and  feelings  in  milder  language. 

As  already  stated,  nearly  all  the  learned,  relying  on  the  expressions  of 
Eusebius,  place  the  controversy  with  the  Asiatics  after  the  African  controversy 
with  Cyprian,  and  suppose  that  the  Asiatics  only  became  implicated  in  the  Afri- 
can disputes.  It  is,  therefore,  necessary  for  me  to  show,  that  in  this  they  err, 
and  that  the  controversy  commenced  in  Asia,  and  thence  was  carried  into  Africa. 
My  first  argument  is  derived  from  the  Epistle  of  the  celebrated  Firmilian  to 
Cyprian,  which  has  been  already  cited.  We  have  seen,  that  when  Firmilian 
wrote  that  Epistle,  friendly  intercourse  with  the  Orientals  had  already  been  in- 
terrupted by  Stephen.  Now,  Firmilian  there  replies  to  an  Epistle  addressed  to 
[p.  540.]  him  by  Cyprian,  immediately  after  Stephen  had  commenced  his  con- 
troversy with  Cyprian.  And  therefore  Stephen  had  suspended  intercourse,  (absti- 
nuerat) — to  use  an  ecclesiastical  term — with  the  Asiatics  and  with  Fcrmilian, 
before  he  assailed  Cyprian.  Secondly.  When  Firmilian  writes,  that  he  conceives 
Cyprian  cannot  be  ignorant  of  the  hostile  conduct  of  Stephen  towards  the  Ori- 
entals, Pacem  cum  singulis  rumpentem,  modo  cum  Orienialibus,  quod  nee  los 
latere  confidimus;  when  he  writes  thus,  I  say,  he  manifestly  indicates  that 
Stephen's  Asiatic  contest  preceded  his  African  contest  with  Cyprian.  Lastly, 
Dionysius  Alexandrinus^  (apud  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  5,  p.  252,) — than 
whom  a  better  and  more  reliable  authority  cannot  be  given,  most  clearly  states 
that  before  Qr^on^ov,  pj-ius,)  Stephen  commenced  his  attack  on  Cyprian  and  the 
Africans,  he  had  pronounced  Firmilian  and  the  Asiatic  bishops  unworthy  of 
his  communion.    The  passage  has  been  already  cited. 

Cyprian  involuntarily  became  implicated  in  this  controversy  with  the  Asia- 
tics. Having  assembled  a  council  at  Carthage,  in  the  year  256,  the  question 
was  proposed  by  the  bishops  of  Numidia,  Whether  those  apparently  baptised 
among  heretics  and  schismatics,  ought,  on  coming  over  to  the  catholic  church,  to  be 
baptized?  Cyprian  and  the  thirty-two  bishops  present  in  council,  replied.  That 
no  one  could  be  baptized  outside  of  the  church,  because  there  is  but  one  baptism  in- 
stituted in  the  holy  church :  and  they  added,  that  they  did  not  bring  forward  a 
new  opinion,  but  one  established  long  ago  by  their  predecessors.  See  the  Epistle 
among  those  of  Cyprian,  (Epist.  Ixx.  p.  124.)  But,  as  the  number  of  bishops  in 
this  council  was  not  great,  Cyprian  called  another  shortly  after,  in  which  were 
seventy-one  bishops,  and  submitted  this  and  other  questions  to  a  second  discus- 
sion ;  and  all  the  bishops,  as  Cyprian  informs  us,  (Epist.  Ix.xiii.  p.  129.)  decided : 


Baptisms    by   Heretics.  g5 

Unum  bapfisma  esse,  quod  sit  in  ecdesia  calholica  consliluluyn,  ac  per  hoc  non  re- 
baptizari,  sed  baplizrari,  quicunque  ab  adultera  el  prophana  aqua  veniunt  ablu- 
endi  el  sanciificandi  salutaris  aqucB  veritaie.  This  decision  of  the  second  council 
was  defended  by  Cyprian,  in  his  long  Epistle  to  Jiibaianus,  (Ep'ist,  l.vxiii.  p.  129,) 
just  as  he  had  before  vindicated  the  decision  of  the  former  council,  in  his  Epis- 
tle to  Quintus,  bishop  of  Mauritania,  (Epist.  Ixxi.  p.  126.)  But  as  he  was 
aware  that  a  diflforent  custom  prevailed  at  Rome,  and  perhaps  had  heard  some- 
thing about  the  rupture  between  Stephen,  the  Roman  bishop,  and  the  bi.-^hops 
ot  Asia  on  this  subject,  both  he  and  the  council  thought  it  advisable  to  commu- 
nicate this  decision  of  the  council  to  Stephen,  and  to  take  measures  to  prevent 
his  getting  into  a  passion  and  breaking  off  communion  M'ith  them.  The  Epistle 
addressed  to  Stephen,  in  the  name  of  the  council,  is  still  extant  among  the  Epis- 
ties  of  Cyprian,  (Epist.  Ixxii.  p.  129.)  Every  person  reading  the  Epistle  will 
at  once  see  that  it  was  not  written  for  the  purpose  of  acquainting  the  Romish 
bishop  with  the  doings  of  the  council,  but  solely  to  forestall  his  anger  and  in- 
dignation. For  they  pnss  silently  over  nearly  all  the  many  important  decisions 
of  the  council,  and  mention  only  two  of  them,  the  one  concerning  the  baptisms 
of  heretics,  and  the  other  concerning  priests  and  deacons  coming  over  [p.  541.] 
to  the  church  from  the  heretics.  Yet,  despairing  of  Stephen's  approving  their 
sentiments,  they  wisely  intimate,  at  the  end  of  the  Epistle,  that  they  have  no 
wish  to  enter  into  controversy  with  any  one  differing  from  them  in  opinion. 
They  say,  (c.  4,)  Cseterum,  scimns  quosdara  quod  seme!  imbiberint  nolle  de- 
ponere,  nee  propositum  suum  facile  mutare,  sed  salvo  inter  collegas  pacis  et 
concordise  vinculo  quasdam  propria  qua?  apud  se  semel  sint  usurpata  retinere. 
Qua  in  re  nee  nos  vim  cuiquam  facimus  aut  legem  damns,  quando  habeat  in 
ecclesicc  adminislratione  voluntatis  suce  arbitrium  liberum  unusquisque  prcepositus 
rationem  actus  sui  Domino  redditurus.  Now,  he  who  sees  the  Afiicans  Avriting 
in  this  manner  to  the  Roman  bishop,  and  still  contends  that  the  Roman  bishops 
in  that  age  had  any  power  or  jurisdiction  whatever  over  the  other  bishops,  surely 
must  be  beyond  measure  obstinate  and  perverse,  or  he  must  be  excessively 
blinded  by  his  early  received  opinions.  If  it  was  true  in  the  third  century,  as 
the  African  council  assert,  that  every  individual  bishop  had  free  arbitriment  in  the 
administration  <.f  the  affairs  of  his  church,  and  would  have  to  give  account  of  his 
conduct  to  the  Lord  only,  then,  beyond  all  question,  that  which  many  at  this  day 
account  true,  was  at  that  time  absolutely  fiilse;  namely,  that  God  had  subjected 
all  the  bishops  to  a  certain  one  of  them,  and  that  a  certain  one  was  to  enact 
laws  in  Christ's  name  for  the  church,  and  that  every  thing  in  the  church  must 
be  conducted  and  administered  according  to  his  pleasure. — But  to  proceed,  it 
is  clear  then,  that  the  African  church,  although  it  decided  that  heretics  must  be 
again  baptized  on  entering  the  purer  church,  yet  did  not  regard  the  contrary 
opinion  as  tearing  up  the  foundations  of  religion.  On  the  excited  mind  of 
Stephen,  however,  this  moderation  of  sentiment  proved  rather  irritating  than 
sedative;  because,  doubtless,  it  provoked  him  to  see  the  Africans  take  ground 
with  those  whom  he  had  pronounced  enemies  of  his  church.  lie  therefore,  in 
the  name  of  the  Roman  church,  wrote  to  Cyprian,  or  rather  to  the  African 
church,  in  whose  name  Cyprian  had  addressed  him,  no  less  imperiously  than 


86  Century  III.— Section  18. 

bitterly  and  revilingly,  and  doubtless  in  the  same  strain  as  previously  to  the 
Asiatic  bishops,  declaring-  that  he  would  have  no  communion  with  persons  who 
said  the  bnptism  of  heretics  ought  to  be  repeated.  The  Epistle  is  lost  through 
the  fault,  if  I  do  not  misjudge,  of  those  in  former  times,  who  thought  it  benefi- 
cial to  the  church  to  cover  up  the  faults  and  errors  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs.  But 
the  tenor  (tf  it  may  still  be  known,  partly  from  the  Epistle  of  Cyprian,  to  Pom- 
peius,  (Epist.  Ixxiv.)  and  partly  from  the  Letter  of  Firmillan,  bishop  of  Cajsaraea, 
to  Cyprian,  which  is  the  next  in  order  among  the  Epistles  of  Cyprian,  (Ep. 
Ixxv.)  According  to  Cyprian's  account  of  it,  it  contained  many  arrogant  Ikingsy 
irreulant  to  the  subject,  and  adverse  to  his  own  cause,  unadvisedly  and  un/cilfuLly 
written :  and  that  this  representation  is  not  entirely  false,  an  impartial  person 
can  without  difliculty  believe;  and  yet,  to  be  perfectly  frank,  the  same  might, 
to  some  extent,  be  said  of  Cyprian's  own  Epistle,  for  it  employs  vain  and  futile 
arguments,  and  abounds  much  in  sarcasms.  But  there  is  this  commendable  in 
[p.  542.]  Cyprian,  that  he  docs  not  retaliate  upon  Stephen,  by  excluding  him  from 
fellowsliip,  but  calls  him  Our  Brother,  which  titleisa  manifest  indication  of  a  dispo- 
sition for  peace  and  a  dread  of  discord.  Learned  men  have  greatly  lauded  this 
temperate  conduct  of  Cyprian;  and  not  wholly  without  reason.  But,  in  my 
judgment,  it  will  detract  somewhat  from  this  commendation  to  reflect  that 
Cyprian  could  not  deny  to  Stephen  the  privileges  of  a  brother,  witliout  contra- 
dicting his  own  principles.  Stephen  might  consistently  do  so,  because  he  re- 
garded the  opinion  of  the  Africans  as  militating  with  true  religion  ;  but  Cyprian 
and  the  Africans  could  not  do  it,  because  they  judged  the  opinion  of  Stephen 
to  be  one  of  the  minor  errors  which  were  to  be  tolerated.  The  man  must 
doubtless  be  heartless,  and  destitute  of  all  kind  feelings,  who  can  deprive 
another  of  the  rights  of  a  brother,  while  he  acknowledges  him  to  have  erred  but 
slightly,  and  to  have  not  wounded  the  vitals  of  religion. — But  we  will  proceed. 
It  nppears  from  the  Epistle  of  Firmilian,  already  mentioned,  that  Stephen,  in 
his  Epistle  to  the  Asiatics,  derived  the  custom  which  prevailed  in  the  Roman 
church  from  Peter  and  Paul,  the  founders  of  that  church,  and  appealed  to  con- 
tinuous tradition.  He  says,  (c.  6.  p.  144.)  Adhuc  etiam  infamans  Petrum  et 
Paulum  beatos  Apostolos,  quasi  hoc  ipsi  tradiderint.  But  the  Asiatics  defended 
their  opinion  in  the  same  way  ;  indeed  they  carried  their  pretensions  still  higher, 
and  declared  Christ  himself  to  be  the  author  of  their  tradition.  Says  Finnilian^ 
(p.  149.)  Nos  veritati  et  consuefudinem  jungimus,  et  consuetudini  Romanorum 
corsuetudinem,  sed  veritatis,  opponimus,  ab  initio  hoc  tenentes,  quod  a  Christo 
et  ah  ApostoUs  traditum  est.  In  this  controversy,  therefore,  tradition  was  op- 
posed to  tradition,  the  Asiatic  tradition  from  Christ  and  the  Apostles  to  the  Ro- 
man tradition  from  Peter  and  Paul.  But  it  should  be  remembered,  that  even 
in  that  early  age,  the  institutions,  which  no  one  was  able  to  trace  to  their 
origin,  were  called  the  traditions  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles.  And  Firmilian  him- 
self attests,  that  the  Asiatics  accounted  their  custom  an  Apostolical  one,  solely 
because  they  were  ignorant  of  the  time  of  its  introduction.  lie  says:  Nee 
meminimus  hoc  apud  nos  aliqando  coepisse,  cum  semper  istic  observatum  sit, 
ut  non  nisi  unam  Dei  ecclesiam  nossemus,  et  sanctum  baptisma  non  nisi  sanctae 
ecclesiae  computaremus.     From  this  Epistle  of  Firmilian  it  appears,  moreover, 


Baptisms    hij   Heretics.  87 

that  Stephen  had  fTre:it]y  lauded  the  dignity  of  his  churcli,  and  its  eminence 
among  the  churches.  Atque  ego  in  h;;c  parte  juste  indiguor  ad  lianc  tam  aper- 
tani  et  manifestiim  Stcphani  stultiliam,  quod  qui  sic  de  cpiseoputus  sui  loco 
gloriatur  et  se  succeseorem  Petri  tenere  eonlendit,  super  quern  fundaraenta 
ecclesias  collocata  f^unt,  niultas  alias  pctras  inducat,  et  ecclesiarum  mult:;ium 
alia  a^dificia  constituat,  dum  esse  illic  baptisma  sua  auctoritate  defendit.  Tiiis, 
doubtless,  was  the  part  of  Stephen's  letter,  for  which  Cyprian  branded  him  with 
the  epithet  proud.  I  wish  we  had  the  reply  of  tlie  Africans  to  this  [p.  543.] 
panegyric  on  the  chair  of  Peter.  But  it  has  been  lost,  undoubtedly,  because  it 
was  not  honorary  to  the  Romish  church  ;  as  we  may  easily  infer  from  the  other 
Epistles  of  Cyprian,  in  which  he  expresses  his  opinion  of  the  rights  of  the 
bishops.  The  other  topics  in  this  Epistle  of  Stephen,  or  rather,  of  the  Romish 
church,  I  omit,  as  they  throw  no  light  upon  history.  On  receiving  this  Epistle 
the  African  bishops  did  not  abandon  their  cause,  but,  in  another  Epistle  address- 
ed to  the  Romish  church  or  to  Stephen,  refuted  all  his  arguments  for  tiie  eflicacy 
of  baptisms  by  heretics.  The  learned  men  who  have  investigated  this  history  of 
this  controversy,  take  no  notice  of  this  second  Epistle  of  the  Africans.  But  no 
one  who  attentively  reads  the  Epistle  of  Firmilian  to  Cyprian,  can  doubt  that 
it  was  actually  written.  He  says,  (c.  4,  p.  143.)  Nos  vero  quae  a  vobis  scripta 
sunt  quasi  nostra  propria  suscepimus,  nee  in  transcursu  legimus,  aed  sa^pe  repe- 
tita  memoriae  mandavimus.  Neque  obest  utilitati  salutari  aut  eadem  retexere  ad 
confirmandam  veritatem  aut  et  quaedam  addere  ad  cumulandam  probationem. 
After  a  few  remarks,  he  proeeeds,  (c.  7)  :  Sed  et  ad  ilium  partem  bene  a  vobia 
responsum  est,  ubi  Stephanus  in  epistola  sua  dixit  haereticos  in  baptismo  con- 
venire.  And  a  little  after:  Quo  in  loco  etsi  vos  jam  probastis,  satis  ridiculum 
esse,  ut  quis  sequatur  errantes,  illud  tamen  ex  abundanti  addimus.  The 
Africans,  therefore,  had  replied  to  Stephen,  and  Firmilian  had  the  reply  in  his 
hands;  and  in  his  own  Epistle  he,  in  part,  (retexebat,)  reconstructed,  as  he  ex- 
presses it,  and  in  part  confirmed  the  reasoning  of  it,  by  new  arguments.  Per- 
haps some  may  conjecture,  that  the  Epistle  which  Firmilian  had  before  him  was 
that  of  Cyprian  to  Pompeius,  or  his  74th  Epistle,  in  which  he  confutes  tho 
Epistle  of  Stephen.  But  this  conjecture  must  be  abandoned,  if  we  consider 
that  Firmilian  cites  from  the  Epistle  which  he  mentions  and  examines,  several 
things  which  do  not  occur  in  the  Epistle  to  Pompeius.  Besides,  it  is  manifest 
from  the  words  of  Firmilian  above  quoted,  that  he  is  not  speaking  of  a  private 
Epistle  of  one  individual  to  another,  but  of  a  common  Epistle  of  the  assembled 
African  bishops.  He  says:  Quae  a  xohis  scripta  sunt,  legi.  Vos  jam  prohasfis: 
Vos  respondistis.  Stephen  was  so  irritated  by  this  Epistle,  that  he  not  only  re- 
plied more  harshly  and  angrily  than  before,  but  he  assailed  Cyj.riaii,  whom  he 
regarded  as  the  author  of  the  African  contumacy,  with  direct  maledictions,  and 
excluded  the  Africans  from  his  communion.  This  also  may  appear  periiaps  to 
be  news,  because  we  do  not  find  it  any  where  expressly  stated.  But  here, 
again,  the  Epistle  ot  Firmilian  will  show  that  this  is  no  vain  or  rash  conjeeiurc. 
At  the  time  Firmilian  wrote,  all  communion  between  the  Africans  and  the  Ro- 
mans had  certainly  been  suspended  by  Stephen.  For  Firmilian  says:  (c.  6,  p. 
144);  Quod   nunc  Stephanus  ausus  est  ii\ccvQ,  rumpcns  adversus   vos  pacem, 


88  Century  III. — Section  18. 

quam  semper  antecessores  ejus  vobiseum  amore  et  honore  mutuo  custodierunt. 
And  towards  the  end  :  (o.  24,  p.  150)  :  Peecatum  vero  quam  magnum  tibi  ex- 
aggerasti,  quando  te  a  tot  gregibus  seidisti !  I  omit  more  passages  of  the  same 
[p.  644.]  tenor.  But  in  the  first  Epistle  of  Stephen,  which  Cyprian  refutes  in 
his  Epistle  to  Pompeius,  Stephen  had  not  proceeded  beyond  threats;  notwith- 
standing Angusline  has  stated,  (de  Baptismo  contra  Donatistas,  L.  V.  c.  25, 
0pp.  torn.  ix.  p.  106,)  that  Stephen,  abstinendos  generatini  putaverat,  qui  de 
suscipiendis  liaBreticis  priscam  consuetudinem  convellere  conarentur.  There 
must,  therefore,  have  followed  a  second  Epistle,  in  which  he  carried  out  the 
determination  he  had  formed,  and  declared  non  communion  with  the  Africans. 
Moreover,  Firmilian  testifies,  (c.  26,)  that  in  his  last  Epistle  Stephen  assailed 
Cyprian  with  invectives :  Et  tamen  no^n  pudet  Stephanum,  talibus  (haereiicis) 
adversus  ccclesiam  patrocinium  pra3stare,  et  propter  ha3reticos  asserendos/rcr^er- 
mtalem  scindere,  insuper  et  Cyprianum  pseudocliristum  et  pseiidoapostolum  et  dolo- 
sum  opernrium  dicere.  Firmilian  would,  doubtless,  never  have  said  this,  had 
not  Stephen  written  it.  But,  in  his  first  Epistle,  he  had  not  yet  uttered  these  re- 
proaches, for  Cyprian  would  not  have  passed  them  in  silence  in  his  Epistle  to 
Pompeius,  if  they  had  then  been  uttered.  It  was,  therefore,  in  another  Epistle, 
written  after  the  first,  that  he  inveighed  so  reproachfully  against  Cyprian.  The 
wiser  Africans  thought  they  ought  to  spare  no  pains  to  allay  this  storm,  and 
therefore  sent  a  legation  to  Rome,  to  restore  peace  if  possible.  But  Stephen 
forbid  the  Roman  Christians  to  receive  into  their  houses  the  bishops  of  the 
legation,  whom  he  had  deprived  of  his  communion,  and  would  not  admit  them 
even  to  a  conference.  Says  Firmilian,  (c.  25,  p.  150,)  A  vobis,  qui  in  meridie  estis, 
legates  episcopos  patienter  satis  et  leniter  suscepit,  ut  eos  nee  ad  sermonem 
saltem  colloquii  communis  admitteret,  adhuc  insuper  dilectionis  et  carir.ntis 
memor  pra^ciperet  fraternitati  nniversse,  ne  quis  eos  in  domum  sunm  reciperet, 
ut  venientibus  nor  solum  pax  et  communio,  sed  et  tectum  et  hospitium  negare- 
tur!  So  the  legation  returned  home,  leaving  the  business  where  it  was.  I  see 
not  what  could  demonstrate  more  clearly  than  this  fact  does,  that  Stephen  ex- 
cluded from  the  communion  of  the  Roman  church  not  only  Cyprian,  but  the 
whole  African  church,  of  which  these  bishops  were  the  legates. — After  this  many 
things  were,  doubtless,  said  and  done,  of  which  no  record  has  reached  us.  Ste- 
phen, we  may  believe  without  testimony,  being  a  man  of  w'eak  mind,  endeavored 
to  excite  the  christian  world  against  the  Africans;  and  many  councils  were  held 
on  the  subject  here  and  there,  as  I  recollect  Augustine  some  where  intimates. 
Ai;d  therefore  Cyprian,  that  he  and  his  Africans  might  not  stand  alone,  thought 
proper  to  look  about  him  for  friends.  And,  knowing  that  the  Asiatics  had  been 
attacked  in  the  same  manner,  he  dispatched  Rogatian,  his  deacon,  with  a  letter 
to  the  oft-mentioned  Firmilian  a  man  of  very  great  influence,  and  sent  him 
documents  which  would  acquaint  him  with  the  whole  case.  Firmilian  responded 
according  to  his  wishes ;  and,  as  his  Epistle  (among  those  of  Cyprian,  Ep.  !xxv.) 
[p.  545.]  shows,  approved  of  all  that  had  been  done  and  written  by  the  Africans  ; 
and,  in  the  severest  terms  and  even  with  contumely,  censured  Stephen,  who 
had  treated  tlie  Asiatics  with  the  same  abuse  as  the  Africans.  At  the  same 
time  Cyprian,  to  prevent  any  of  the  African  bishops  from  taking  sides  with 


Baptisms    by   Heretics.  89 

Stephen,  convoked  a  council  in  the  month  of  September,  A. I).  256,  from  the  three 
provinces  of  Africa,  Numidia,  and  Mauritania.  The  Acts  of  tiiis  council  have 
been  transmitted  to  us  by  Augustine,  (de  Baptismo  contra  Donatistas,  L.  vi.  and 
vii.  0pp.  torn,  ix.)  They  are  extant  also  among  the  works  of  Cyprian,  p.  329. 
There  were  present  87  bishops,  and  not  only  presbyters  and  deacons,  but  also 
(pkbis  maxima  pars)  a  large  portion  of  the  people.  In  his  address  to  the  attending 
bishops,  Cyprian  reiterated  what  he  had  before  repeatedly  declared,  that  the 
question  to  be  discussed  was  one  of  those  on  which  men  might  differ  in  opinion, 
without  a  violation  of  fraternal  harmony ;  and  he  chastised  the  arrogance  of 
Stephen,  but  without  naming  him.  His  words  are  worthy  to  be  here  repeated, 
as  they  express  the  sentiments  of  that  age  in  regard  to  the  independence 
of  bishops,  and  render  perfectly  certain  that  no  one  in  that  age,  not  even 
Stephen  himself,  had  ever  dreamed  of  any  judge  and  legislator  for  the  univer- 
sal church.  That  Stephen  himself  had  not  thought  of  any  such  judge  I  confi- 
dently assert ;  for,  certainly,  if  he  had  supposed  such  high  dignity  to  be  confer- 
red on  himself  by  Christ,  he  would  have  pursued  a  very  different  course  than 
he  did  with  the  Africans.  Said  Cyprian  :  Superest,  ut  de  hac  ipsa  re  singuli 
quid  sentiamus,  proferamus,  neminem  judicantes,  aut  a  jure  communicationis 
aliquem,  si  diversum  senserit,  amoventes.  Neque  enim  quisquam  nostrum  epis- 
copum  se  esse  episcoporum  constituit,  aut  tyrannico  terrore  ad  obsequendi 
necessitatem  collegas  suos  adigit,  quando  habeat  omnis  episcopus  pro  licentia 
libcrtatis  et  potestatis  sua)  arbitrium  proprium,  tamque  judicari  ab  alio  non  pos- 
sit,  quam  nee  ipse  potest  alterum  judicare.  Sed  expeetemus  universi  judicium 
Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi,  qui  unus  et  solus  habet  potestatem  et  prjeponendi 
nos  in  ecclesise  suae  gubernatione,  et  de  actu  nostro  judicandi.  At  that  time, 
therefore,  Christ  had  no  vicar  here  on  earth,  but  was  himself  (solus  et  unus)  the 
sole  and  only  judge  of  his  church.  All  the  bishops  concurred  in  the  opinion  of 
Cyprian,  and  decided  that  heretics  should  be  re-baptized.  The  unanimity  and 
modesty  of  this  great  council,  and  the  friendship  between  the  Asiatics  and  the 
Africans,  I  suppose,  repressed  the  violence  of  Stephen  and  other  bishops;  for 
we  do  not  learn  that  this  contest  continued  afterwards.  Dionysius  Alexandrinus 
also,  as  we  learn  from  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  e.  2,  &c.)  endeavored  by 
his  letters  to  bring  the  mind  of  Stephen  to  acquiescence  and  peace ;  and  per- 
haps others,  who  foresaw  danger  from  a  continuance  of  the  contest,  followed 
his  example.  For  some  time,  therefore,  the  Africans  adhered  to  their  opinion, 
the  other  christians  not  taking  offence  at  their  constancy;  but  gradually  they 
went  over  to  the  opposite  opinion,  and  finally,  in  a  council  which  Augustine 
styles  plenarium  (de  Baptismo,  L.  I.  c.  7,)  held  at  Nice  or  Aries,  (for  [p.  546.] 
the  learned  are  not  agreed  as  to  this  council,)  thoy  universally  embraced  the 
Romish  custom. 

It  remains  for  us  to  ascertain  the  precise  sentiments  of  the  two  parties. 
Cyprian  and  Finnilian  state  with  sufficient  persi)icuity,  what  they  and  their 
brethren  maintained.  Says  Cyprian,  (Epist.  Ixxiv.  ad  Pompeium,  c.  12,  p.  142): 
Omncs,  qui  ex  quacunque  hffircsi  ad  ecclesiam  convertuntur,  ecclesia)  unico  et 
legitimo  baptismo  baptizantur,  exceptis  his,  qui  baptizati  in  ecclesia  prius  fuc- 
rant,  et  sic  ad  hareticos  transierant.     Illos  enim   oportet,  cum  redount,  acta 


90  Century  III.— Section  18. 

poenltentia  per  manus  impositionem  solam  recipi.  By  heretics,  C3«pmn  undei 
stood,  not  merely  corrupters  of  the  true  religion,  but  likewise  all  who  with- 
drew themselves  from  the  principal  church,  and  formed  separate  congregations. 
And  hence,  he  required  the  Novatians  to  be  re-baptized  on  their  coming  over 
to  tlie  church,  (as  we  learn  from  his  76th  Epist,  ad  Magnum,  p.  151,  &.c.) ;  and 
yet  he  acknowledged  that  the  Novatians  were  free  from  all  gross  errors.  This 
pious  and  good  man,  but  too  zealous  about  his  official  dignity  and  oflico,  viewed 
all  who  were  separated  from  the  bishop  as  also  separated  from  Christ,  and  his 
benefits,  and  believed  that  salvation  was  attainable  no  where  but  in  tiie  visible 
church  under  the  bishops  of  the  Apostolic  succession:  and  this  obliged  him  to 
decide,  that  there  could  be  no  saving  baptism  except  it  was  administered  by  such 
bishops,  or  by  their  direction  and  authority.  He  would  surely  have  entertained 
ditferent  ideas  about  the  effects  of  baptism,  if  he  had  not  been  strangely  captivated 
with  a  love  of  the  dogma  of  the  unity  of  the  visible  church,  and  had  not  exalted 
extravagantly  the  rights  and  authority  of  bishops.  The  opinions  of  his  adversar}'' 
Stephen,  are  not  equally  manifest.  Those  solicitous  for  the  reputation  of  Ste- 
phen, and  such,  with  few  exceptions,  are  nearly  all  the  adherents  to  the  Romish 
church,  to  whom  it  appears  hard  and  difficult  to  believe  that  any  of  the  ancient 
Pontiff's  difft-'red  from  the  modern,  or  that  the  church,  in  the  third  century,  was 
divided  between  two  errors — those  in  favor  of  Stephen,  I  say,  t"lls  us  that  he 
taught  just  as  the  Romish  church  does  at  the  present  day,  not  that  the  baptisms 
of  alt  heretics,  but  only  of  those  who  in  baptizing  invoked  the  names  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  were  valid  baptisms.  See  Tillemont,  (Memoires 
pour  servir  a  I'Hist.  de  I'Eglise,  tom.  iv.  P.  I.  p.  419,  &c.)  and  Natalis  Alexan- 
der, (Selecta  Hist.  Eccles.  Capita,  tooj.  iii.  p.  691,  &c.)  who  treats  this  subject 
in  his  usual  scholastic  rather  than  historical  manner.  But  others  for  the  most 
part,  to  whom  the  reputation  of  the  ancient  Roman  Pontiflfs  does  not  appear  of 
very  great  importance,  think  that  Stephen  believed  all  persons  baptized  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  might  be  received  into  the  fellowship  of  the  better  church, 
without  another  baptism.  Respecting  these,  see  in  particular  Peter  AlUx,  (Diss. 
de  vita  et  scriptis  Tertulliani,  c,  4,  p.  30,  &c.)  not  to  mention  Dhndell,  Launoiy 
and  others.  The  former  party  defend  their  position  by  the  authority  especi- 
[p.  547.]  ally  of  Eusebius,  Augustine,  Vincer.i  of  Lirins,  and  Facundus ;  who 
say  that  Stephen  accounted  no  baptism  valid,  unless  it  was  administered  in  the 
words  prescribed  by  Christ.  But  to  these  comparatively  recent  authorities  the 
latter  party  oppose  other  more  ancient  and  higher  authorities;  and  first  Stephen 
himself,  whose  words,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Africans,  preserved  by  Cyprian, 
(Epist.  Ixxiv.  c.  1,  p.  138.)  are  these  :  "  Si  quis  ergo  a  quaciinquc  hccresi  vencrit 
ad  vos,  nihil  innovetur  nisi  quod  traditum  est,  ut  manus  illi  imponatur  in  poeni- 
tentiam,  cum  ipsi  haerttici  proprie  alterutrum  ad  se  venientes  non  baptizent,  sed 
communicent  tantum."  Moreover,  Cyprian,  who,  almost  invariably,  represents 
Stephen  as  holding  all  baptisms  administered  in  the  name  of  Christ  to  be  legi- 
timate, says,  (Epist.  Ixxiv.  c.  5,  p.  139.)  Si  eftectum  haptismi  majestati  ncminis 
tribuunt,  ut  qui  in  nomine  Jesu  Chj-isti  ubicunque  et  quomodocxmqiic.  baptizen- 
tur,  innovati  et  sanctificati  judieentur  ;  cur  non,  &c.  And  farther,  the  ancient, 
but  unknown  author  of  the  Liber  de  Rebaplismate,  who  takes  sides  with  Ste- 


Persecution  of  Valerian.  9J 

phen,  nnd  whose  book  is  commonly  printed  with  the  Opera  Cypriani^  (p.  353.) 
with  the  following,'  title  prefixed:  Non  dcbcre  donuo  baptizari  qui  semel  in 
nomine  Domini  nostri  Jcsu  Christi  sunt  tincti ;  seems  to  decide  tiic  question 
respecting  Stephen's  views.  I  omit  other  testimonies  of  less  importance. 
These  testimonies,  I  confess,  seem  to  have  great  weight ;  yet  I  have  some  hcsi- 
tiition  to  admit  their  conclusiveness,  because  Firmllian,  an  opposer  of  Stepheny 
in  his  P'pistle  to  Cyprian,  (c.  9,  p.  145.)  states  Stephen's  opinion  thus:  lllud 
quoque  absurdum,  quod  non  putant  qiiwrendum  esse  quis  sit  ille  qui  bnptiza- 
verit,  eo  quod  qui  baptizatus  sit,  gratiam  consequi  potucrit  iniocala  IriniLalc 
nomi'ium  Palris  et  Filii  el  Spiritus  Sancti.  Firmilian  writes  what  he  had  found 
stated  in  the  Epistle  of  Cyprian,  or  of  the  Africans  to  Stephen,  and  he  also 
himself  was  well  acquainted  with  the  opinions  of  Stephen  ;  and,  therefore, 
his  testimony  is  worthy  of  consideration.  Yet,  perhaps,  he  aimed  only  to 
explain  the  point,  and  attributed  to  Stephen  the  conceptions  of  his  own  mind. 
To  confess  the  truth,  I  can  believe  that  Stephen  expressed  his  views  only  in 
general  terms,  and  did  not  accurately  define  them ;  and,  therefore,  they  were 
exphiined  differently.  Men  very  frequently,  at  the  present  day,  in  theological 
controversies,  afUrm  and  deny,  attack  and  defend,  only  in  a  general  way,  and 
without  defining  the  conflicting  opinions.  And  why  may  we  not  suppose  this 
to  have  occurred  in  the  present  controversy. 

§  XIX.  The  Persecution  under  Valerian.  After  showing  him- 
self kind  and  indalgcnt  towards  the  Christians  until  the  fifth 
year  of  his  reign,  sudden!}^,  by  the  persuasion  of  Macrianus,  his 
bosom  companion,  a  man  of  very  high  rank  and  reputation,  but 
exceedingly  superstitious,  Valerian,  in  the  year  257,  changed  his 
policy  towards  them,  and  ordered  the  governors  of  pro-  [p.  5-18.] 
vinces  to  inhibit  the  meetings  of  Christians,  and  to  send  their 
bishops  and  teachers  into  exile.(')  Bnt  these  milder  mandates 
rather  animated  than  disheartened  the  Christians,  who  liad  been 
accustomed  previously  to  greater  evils.  Therefore,  in  the  follow- 
ing year  he  issued  a  much  severer  edict,  in  the  execution  of 
which  the  magistrates  put  to  death  no  small  number  of  Christians 
throughout  the  provinces  of  the  Roman  empire,  and  frequently  in- 
flicted on  them  punishments  worse  than  death. (")  Eminent  among 
those  that  fell  in  this  persecution  were  Cyprian,  the  celebrated 
bishop  of  Carthage,  who  was  beheaded ;  and  Sixtus,  the  Romish 
prelate,  who  is  said  to  have  been  crucified ;  and  Laurence,  the  Ro- 
man deacon,  famous  among  the  martyrs,  who  is  :5aid  to  have  been 
roasted  to  death  on  a  slow  fire :  some,  however,  refer  this  last  mnr- 
tyi'domtothe  Decian  period.  But  Valerian  being  taken  captive  in 
a  war  with  Sapor,  king  of  Persia,  his  son  Gallienm,  by  a  rescript 
addressed  to  the  provincial  governors  in  the  year  260,  restored  full 


Ife  Century  Ill.—Scction  19. 

peace  to  the  Cliristians,  after  four  years  of  suffering. (^)  Yet  they 
were  not  placed  in  entire  security ;  for  the  ancient  laws  of  the 
Emperors  against  them  were  not  abrogated,  and,  therefore,  such 
of  the  governors  as  were  so  dis|)osed,  could  put  those  Christians 
to  death  who  were  regularly  accused  and  acknowledged  their 
faith,  if  they  refused  to  sacrifice  to  the  gods.Q 

(1)  Respecting  the  clemency  of  Valerian  to  the  Christians  in  the  iirst 
years  of  his  reign,  and  the  author  of  the  subsequent  change  in  his  feelings 
towards  them,  the  most  important  witness  we  have  is  Dionysius  Alexandrinus, 
in  his  Epistle  to  Hermammon,  the  latter  part  of  which  is  preserved  by  Euse- 
hius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  10.  p.  255.)  But  as  Eusebius  cites  two  passages 
from  this  Epistle,  in  one  of  which  Dionysius  does  not  mention  the  name  of  the 
person  who  induced  Valerian  to  persecute  the  Christians,  and  in  the  other  tell.s 
us  that  Macrianus  advised  the  Emperor  to  this  course,  a  dispute  has  arisen 
among  the  learned,  whether  this  persecution  is  to  be  traced  to  one  man  as  its 
author,  or  to  two.  In  the  first  passage  Dyonisiiis  says:  'A-rza-Kiuaa-ua-d-ai  (Te  Trapi- 
TTiiTiV  dvrif  0  S'l^ao-H.ctKoz  xai  riov  ot'  AiyvTTTtv  /udyaiv  dp^ia-vvdyojyoi,  tou;  /uiv 
xa^dp^vi  Kui  oa-iovs  uvSp'xs  ktivvvs-B-ai  xat  J'tcjKiTd-ati  KiXiucev .  Vcrum  mao-ister 
et  Archisynagogus  magorum  Aegypti  ei  (Valeraino)  tandem  persuasit,  utab  hoc 
instituto  descisceret,  jubens,  ut  castos  quidem  et  sanctos  viros  persequeretur 
atque  occideret.    But  a  little  after  he  snysi  'O  f^h  yap  o'ystxe^/atvdf  in  TaZru. 

vTTd  Tourov  (MoKStavzu)  7rpca.^^ils  cig  v^pni  Kai  ovaS'ia-fji.ovs  iaS'od'as.  Nam  Vale- 
[p.  549. J  rianiis  quidem, qui  ad  hujusmodi  facinora  a  Macrinno  (for  he  is  the  per- 
son spoken  of,)  impulsus  fiierat,  contumeliis  et  opprobriis  fuit  expositus  et  de- 
ditus.  It  is,  therefore,  made  a  question,  whether  this  Macrianus  is  the  same  per- 
son who  was  before  called  Chief  of  the  Synagogue  of  the  Egyptian  Magicians, 
or  a  different  person.  Not  a  few,  deeming  it  scarcely  credible,  that  so  distin- 
guished a  man  as  Macrianus  was,  an  intimate  with  the  emperor,  and  hold- 
ing the  highest  position,  "  than  whom,"  (as  Tremellius  Pollio  says  in  his 
Gallienus,  Scriptor.  Hist.  August,  tom.  ii.  189.)  "none  of  the  generals  were 
deemed  more  wise,  none  more  competent  for  business,  none  more  opulent," 
should  be  prefect  of  the  Egyptian  Magicians, — have  supposed  this  Magician  of 
Dionysius  to  be  a  difTei'cnt  person  from  ^Macrianus ;  and,  of  course,  that  there 
were  two  persons  who  prompted  Valerian  to  show  cruelty  to  the  Christians. 
Among  these  authors,  Gisbert  Cuper,  (in  his  Notes  on  Lactaniius  de  morti- 
bu3  persequutorum,  p.  152.)  goes  so  far  .'is  to  suppose  this  Magician  was  a 
Jew,  infering  it  from  the  Jewish  words  J'lJ'dtrx.a^os  and  'Ap)(^i<rvvdya>yoc  applied 
to  him ;  and  Ja.  Basnage  in  vain  attempted  to  confute  that  idea,  while  he 
himself  did  not  believe  Macrianus  and  the  Magician  to  be  the  same  person, 
(see  Letters  de  Critique,  Histoire,  Litterature  par  M.  Cuper,  p.  386,  390,  Amst. 
1742,  4to.)  But,  as  Dionysius  most  explicitly  states,  that  Macrianus  recom- 
mended the  persecution  to  the  emperor,  and  that  Valerian  received  the  sad 
reward  of  his  docility,  while  he  adds  nothing  which  can  lead  to  the  suppo- 
siiion  that  Macrianus  had  an  associate  in  the  transaction,  the  supposition  haa 


Persecution  of  Valerian.  93 

not  the  least  probability;  on  the  contrary,  wo  must  believe  that  Dionysiug 
designated  one  and  the  same  person  in  this  two-fold  manner.  Nor  will  this 
interpretation  be  weakened  by  the  two  epithets  above  mentioned.  The  first 
of  them,  ^tS'aTKaXoi,  magis/cr,  should  not  he  referred  to  the  Magicians,  us  is 
manifest  from  the  Greek.  Valesius  has  not  expressed  properly  the  meanin"-  of 
Dionysins;  and  this  has  occasioned  some,  who  did  not  inspect  the  Creek,  to 
fall  into  a  mistake.  He  should  have  rendered  it  {Magister  ejus)  his  (Valerian's) 
master,  and  chief  of  the  synagogue,  4'"C.  For  this  word  undoubtedly  has  reference 
to  Valerian,  who  yielded  to  the  opinions  of  Macrianus  in  every  thing,  and  al- 
ways  defered  to  him  as  to  a  master.  Valerian  himself,  in  a  speech  to  the 
senate, said:  Ego  bellum  Persicum  gerens,  Macriano  tolam  reinpuhlicam  tradidi. 
See  Trehellius  Pollids  30  Tyrants,  (in  the  Scriptor.  Historia3  Augusta,  torn.  ii. 
p.  288.)  And  as  to  the  title  Chief  (f  the  Synagogue  of  the  Egijplian  Magicians, 
it  is  a  sneer  of  Dionysius  at  Macrianus,  and  not  the  title  of  bis  office  or  posi- 
tion in  society.  As  Macrianus  was  exceedingly  devoted  to  magic,  and  delighted 
greatly  in  magical  sacrifices,  according  to  Dionysius,  he  represents  him  as  quali- 
fied, by  his  skill  in  the  art,  to  fill  the  office  of  Chief  or  President  of  the  Egyp- 
tian Magicians.  As  to  the  motive  which  led  Macrianus  to  inflame  the  Empe- 
ror's mind  against  the  Christians,  Dionysius  states  it  to  have  been  this,  that  he 
knew  there  were  persons  among  them  who  could  frustrate  the  ma-  [p.  550.] 
gical  rites,  and  destroy  their  eflects  by  a  word  or  a  nod.  Being  himself  greatly 
devoted  to  magic,  he  "  prompted  the  emperor  to  celebrate  impure  rites  of 
initiation,  abominable  incantations,  and  execrable  sacrifices  ;"  for  example,  "  to 
immolate  infants,  and  explore  the  entrails  of  new-born  children."  See  Diony- 
sius, as  quoted  by  Eusebius,  (L.  vii,  c.  10.)  But  he  well  knew,  not  only  that 
the  Christians  universally  held  these  nefiirious  mysteries  in  abhorrence,  but  also 
that  some  of  them  possessed  the  power  of  disconcerting  and  controlling  de- 
mons, so  that  they  could  not  manifest  their  presence  by  oracular  responses 
and  the  other  signs.     Says  Dionysius:  Kai  yap  iKriv  kui  iicrAv  'Uavci  n-upovrts 

xai   ofiwfAiVOty    Hill   /uoviV   t/wrveovTt;    icai  fi^i^yofMVOi,  i'lAaKiS^atrat   ras  tuv   dXn^piuv 

ioLifAQvav  tri^ivhas.  Erant  enim  et  sunt  etiamnum  (inter  nos)  ejusmodi,  qui 
vel  praesentia  et  aspectu  suo,  et  insufflantes  duntaxat  ac  vocem  edentes,  dsemo- 
num  praestigias  disturbare  possunt.  And,  therefore,  he  prevailed  on  the  em- 
peror to  endeavor  to  extirpate  a  sort  of  men  injurious  and  terrible  to  the  art 
he  loved  and  to  the  demons  he  consulted.  But,  we  may  suppose,  the  good 
man  here  gives  us  his  conjectures  rather  than  what  he  knew  to  be  facts.  Res- 
pecting  the  power  of  the  ancient  Christians  to  confound  and  put  to  silence 
demons  and  their  servants  and  idols,  of  wbich  many  others  also  speak,  I  shall 
not  go  into  any  discussion  :  but  this  is  easily  perceived,  we  ought  not  to  look 
there  for  the  cause  of  Macrianus'  hostility  to  the  Christians.  If  he  had  believed 
that  Christians  possessed  such  power,  that  they  could  control  the  demons  he 
loved  and  worshipped,!  think  he  would  not  have  dared  to  assail  them, but  would 
rather  have  feared  and  stood  in  awe  of  them.  For,  why  cannot  they  who  have 
the  demons  under  their  power,  and  who  control  them  at  their  pleasure,  also 
bring,  if  they  choose,  various  evils  upon  the  worsliipi)ers  of  demons !  And  who 
but  a  madman,  destitute  of  reason,  would  voluntarily  and  eagerly  worship  bo- 


94  Century  IIL— Section  19. 

ings  whom  he  knew  to  be  piralyzed  and  stript  of  all  power  by  others  more 
powerful  1  Whoever  seeks  for  himself  a  lord,  will,  if  he  be  in  his  senses,  pre- 
fer the  more  powc-fiil  to  one  of  less  power.  But  suppose  Macrianus  was  so 
insane  as  to  think  the  demons  and  their  worship  frustrated  by  the  Christians,  he 
might  have  forestalJed  the  evil  much  more  easily  than  by  a  resort  to  edicts,  and 
laws  and  punishments :  for,  by  a  little  vigilance  he  could  have  excluded  all 
Christians  from  being  present  at  'lis  infernal  rites  and  mysteries.  Let  us  eon- 
cede,  what  is  not  to  be  denied,  that  the  ancient  Christians  often  supposed  their 
enemies  to  reason  just  as  they  themselves  would,  and  so  attributed  to  thera 
designs  very  forei^a  from  their  real  ones.  I  think  his  superstition  alone  was 
sufficient  to  prompt  Maori.,  nus  to  inflame  the  emperor  against  the  Christians. 
And  I  am  the  more  incH  ed  to  think  so,  because  I  learn  from  Trehellius 
Pollio,  (Thirty  Tyrains,  c.  14,  in  the  Histor.  Augustse,  torn.  ii.  p.  297.)  that  this 
WAS  a  hereditary  disease  in  the  family  of  the  Macriani.  For  all  the  males  and 
females  of  this  family  wore  an  image  of  Alexander  the  Great  on  their  rings, 
[p.  651.]  their  garments,  and  their  ornaments,  influenced  by  a  peurile  conceit  of 
the  vulgar,  [juvari  in  omni  actu  suo,  qui  Alexandrum  expressum  in  aiiro  gestila- 
renl  vet  argenlo.)  that  w^hoever  carried  a  likeness  of  Alexander  impressed  on 
gold  or  silver,  would  be  aided  in  all  their  acts.  Who  can  wonder  that  a  man 
who  could  promise  him  elf  success  from  a  likeness  of  Alexander  the  Macedo- 
nian, should  have  been  extravagantly  attached  to  the  Roman  Gods  and  their 
worship,  and  have  wished  evil  to  the  enemies  of  his  country's  religion  ? 

The  first  assault  of  Valerian  upon  the  Christians  was  such  as  could  be 
endured  ;  as  appears  from  the  Acts  of  Cyprian,  and  of  Dionysius  AlexandrinuSy 
(apud  Euseh.  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  11).  For  he  merely  decreed  the  banish- 
ment of  all  bishops  and  presbyters  who  w-ould  not  worship  the  Roman  gods, 
and  prohibited  the  religious  assemblies  of  Christians.  Cyprian  was  exiled  to 
Carubia,  by  the  proconsul  Paternus,  after  refusing  to  sacrifice  to  the  gods;  and 
Dionysius  was  sent  by  1'>c  praefect  Aemilius  to  a  place  called  Cephro,  in  the 
parts  of  Libya.  But  let  the  proconsul  Paternus  state  to  us  the  pleasure  and  the 
mandate  of  the  emperor,  according  to  the  Acta  Crjpriani,  (in  Theod.  Ruinart, 
Acta  Martyr,  sincera  et  selecta,  p.  216).  When  Cijprian  was  arraigned  before  him, 
Paternus  thus  addressed  him:  Sacratissimi  Imperatores  Valerianus  et  Gallienus 
litteras  ad  me  dare  dignati  sunt,  quibus  praeceperunt  eos,  qui  Romanam  religio- 
nem  non  colunt,  debere  Romanas  ca3reraonias  recognoscere.  Cyprian  had  no 
sooner  declared  that  he  coa'd  not  obey  this  mandate,  than  the  proconsul  pro- 
nounced sentence  of  banishment  upon  him,  and  then  proceeded:  Non  solum  de 
episcopis,  verum  etiara  de  presbyteris  mihi  scribere  dignati  sunt.  From  this  it 
is  very  manifest  that  the  emneror's  mandate  extended  only  to  the  bishops  and 
presbyters;  against  the  dea^O'  s  and  the  people  nothing  was  decreed.  Neither 
was  capital  punishment  ordered  for  bishops  and  presbyters,  but  merely  exile. 
Lastly,  the  proconsul  added  :  Praeccperunt  etiam,  no  in  aliquibus  locis  concilia- 
bula  fiant,  nee  ccemeteria  ingrediantur.  Si  quis  itaque  hoc  tam  salubre  prcecep- 
tum  non  observaverit,  capite  plectetur.  Capital  punishment,  then,  was  enacted 
against  those  who  persisted  either  in  holding  religious  assemblies,  or  in  attend- 
ing them.    The  emperors  prohibited  first  in  general,  all  religious  assemblies, 


Persecution  of   Valerian.  95 

which  they  dcsig-nate  as  Conciliabula ;  and  then,  in  particular,  tlie  convintions 
which  were  held  in  Cemeteries.  By  this  term,  it  is  well  known,  the  phicca  were 
designated  in  which  the  Cliristians  interred  their  dead ;  and  as  there  were  fre- 
quently martyrs  and  confessors  among  their  dead,  they  assembled  at  these 
Cemeteries  on  certain  days  for  religious  worship,  and  to  commemorate  those 
holy  men.  Perhaps,  also,  at  other  times  the  Christians  might  assemble  in  their 
Cemeteries  to  offer  prayers  at  the  sepulchres  of  the  saints  and  martyrs.  And  .13 
they  commonly  came  away  more  resolute  and  more  determined  to  endure  every 
evil  for  Christ's  sake,  it  is  not  strange  that  such  as  wished  the  cxtii:ction  of  the 
Christians  should  oppose  their  resorting  to  these  places.  Here,  then,  we  have 
the  whole  contents  of  the  first  edict  of  Valerian  against  the  Christians :  [p.  552.] 
and  with  this  account  fully  accords  all  that  Dionysius  states,  (apud  Euseb.  L. 
vii.  c.  11.)  respecting  his  own  sufferings  and  those  of  his  colleagues.  Aemilian, 
the  prefect  of  Egypt,  said  to  them;  Mittemini  in  partes  Libya)  ad  locum 
Cephro.  Hunc  enim  locum  jussu  Angiisiorum  nostrorum  elegi.  Nullatenus 
autem  licebit  vobis  conventus  agere,  aut  ea  quae  vocantur  cocmeteria  adire. 
Here,  however,  learned  men  oppose  to  us  not  a  few  examples  of  persons,  who, 
4n  this  first  persecution  of  Valerian,  were  either  put  to  death,  or  thrown  into 
prisons,  or  bastinadoed,  or  condemned  to  the  mines.  Among  other  proofs  ad- 
duced is  the  77th  Epistle  of  Cyprian,  addressed  ad  mariyres  in  meiallis 
cojistilutos,  in  which  he  represents  (p.  158.)  a  part  of  the  people  of  his  charge, 
as  having  already  gone  forth  to  receive  from  the  Lord  the  crown  of  their 
merits,  by  the  consummation  of  their  martyrdom,  and  a  part  as  remaining  still 
within  the  bars  of  their  prisons,  or  at  the  mines  in  chains :  and  he  then  states, 
that  not  only  bishops  and  presbyters,  but  also  many  of  the  people,  and  among 
them  virgins  and  boys,  were  bastinadoed,  fettered,  and  thrust  into  the  mines : 
Denique  exemplum  vcstrum  secuta  multiplex  plcbis  portio  confessa  est  vobis- 
cum  pariter  et  pariter  coronata  est,  conncxa  vobis  vinculo  fortissimae  caritatis,  et 
a  praepositis  suis  nee  carcere,  nee  metallis  separata.  Cujus  numero  nee  virginea 
desunt.  -  -  In  pueris  quoque  virtus  major  actate  annos  suos  confessionis  laudo 
transcendit,  ut  martyrii  vestri  beatum  gregem  et  sexus  et  cetas  omnis  ornaret. 
These  examples,  I  say,  learned  men  have  cited,  to  show  that  the  first  rescripts 
of  Valerian  and  his  son  were  more  cruel  than  we  have  represented,  and  that 
not  only  bishops  and  presbyters,  but  Christians  of  every  order  and  sex  were 
subjected  to  heavy  penalties.  But  whence  this  severity  on  many,  notwithstand- 
ing the  law  was  not  very  rigorous,  may  be  learned  from  the  latter  part  of  the 
imperatorial  mandate.  For  this  ordained  capital  punishment  against  all  who 
either  held  assemblies  or  entered  the  cemeteries.  All,  therefore,  bishops  and 
others,  who  suffered  death,  bastinadoing,  imprisonment,  or  other  punisjmients 
worse  than  exile,  undoubtedly  incurred  these  penalties  because  they  would  hold 
meetings  contrary  to  the  will  of  the  emperor,  and  were  caught  in  the  cemeteries. 
For,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  the  major  part  of  the  Christians  were  bold  in  violat- 
ing the  imperatorial  mandates.  This  is  fully  confirmed  by  the  82d  Ei)istlc  of 
Cyprian,  ad  Successum,  (p.  165.)  where  he  writes:  Xystum  autem  in  cimilcrio 
animadversum  sciatis  octavo  Iduum  Augustarum  die,  et  cum  co  Diaconos  qua- 
tuor.    Scd  et  huic  persecutioni  quotidie  insistunt  pra^fccti  in  urbe,  ut  si  qui  sibi 


96  CentuvT/  III.— Section  19. 

oblati  fucrint  (in  the  cemeteries,  undoubtedly,)  animndvertantur  et  bona  eorum 
fisco  viiidieentur.  The  proconsul  of  Africa,  doubtless,  had  appreliended  a  great 
multitude  of  Christians  of  both  sexes  and  of  all  classes,  who  were  assembled 
for  the  purpose  of  religious  worship  ;  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  mention  of 
[p.  653.]  boys  and  virgins.  To  condemn  such  a  mass  of  persons  to  death,  as 
the  Letter  of  the  emperor  required  to  be  done,  appeared  to  the  proconsul  too 
hard  and  cruel ;  and,  therefore,  he  ordered  only  a  few  to  be  executed  to  terrify 
the  rest,  and  the  others  he  ordered  to  be  bastinadoed,  and  to  be  sent  in  chains 
to  the  mines. 

This  persecution  by  Valerian  had  so  much  in  it  new  and  diverse  from  the 
former  persecutions,  that  I  cannot  but  wonder  at  some  learned  men,  who  tell  us 
that  Valerian  proceeded  against  the  Christians  according  to  the  laws  of  the 
earlier  emperors.  First,  the  ancient  laws  required  that  there  should  be  an  ac- 
cuser, but  now  no  accuser  was  needed,  for  the  governors  themselves  had  inqui- 
sitorial powers.  The  proconsul  Paternus  required  Cyprian  to  dechire  who  were 
his  presbyters;  and  w^heu  he  refused  to  do  it,  the  proconsul  said:  Ego  hodie 
in  hoc  loco  exquiro:  A  me  invenientur.  See  the  Acta  Cypriani  in  RuinarCs 
Acta  martyr,  p.  216. —  Secondhj,  the  emperor's  law*  ordered  the  punishment,  not 
of  all  professed  Christians,  but  only  of  the  bishops  and  presbyters.  No  one 
compelled  i\\e.  feople  io  change  their  religion  and  worship  the  gods:  only  the 
pastors  of  the  flocks  were  required  to  adore  and  pay  homage  to  the  gods. 
When  Dionysius  replied  to  the  prefect  Aemiiius,  who  urged  him  to  the  worship 
of  the  gods,  that  he  worshipped  the  one  God,  the  Creator  of  all  things,  the  pre. 
feet  said :  The  emperors  allow  you  to  do  so,  provided  you  also  worship  the 
gods :  Quis  vero  vos  prohibet,  quo  minus  et  hunc,  si  quidem  Deus  est,  cum  iis, 
qui  natura  Dii  sunt,  adoretis.  This  we  have  from  Dionysius  himself,  (apud 
Euseh.  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii,  c.  11 ;  p.  258). — Lastly,  those  who  declared  that  they 
would  not  worship  the  gods,  were  not  put  to  death,  but  were  only  torn  from 
their  flocks,  and  sent  into  exile.  The  people,  thus  bereaved  of  their  guides  and 
teachers,  were  forbidden  by  the  emperor  to  assemble  and  hold  meetings;  and, 
as  I  think,  for  this  among  other  reasons,  that  they  might  not  choose  new"  teach- 
ers and  bishops  in  the  place  of  those  exiled ;  for  the  Romans  knew  that  such 
functionaries  could  not  be  created  except  by  election  in  a  popular  assembly. 
And  the  emperor  hoped,  if  their  conventions  were  abolished  and  their  teachers 
removed,  their  religion  itself  would  gradually  become  extinct  among  the  com- 
mon people,  and  the  ancient  superstition  would  occupy  its  place. 

(2)  In  the  second  year  of  this  persecution.  Valerian  issued  another  and  much 
severer  edict,  which,  through  nearly  all  the  provinces  of  the  Roman  empire, 
caused  the  death  of  numerous  Christians,  and  particularly  of  bishops  and  pres- 
byters, and  exposed  others  to  severe  punishments  of  every  sort.  When  vague 
and  uncertain  rumors  of  this  new  imperial  law  reached  Africa,  Cyprian  .sent 
messengers  to  Rome  to  learn  the  truth  respecting  it ;  and  from  their  report  ho 
gives  the  following  summary  view  of  the  new  edict,  (Epist.  Ixxxii,  p.  165.)  : 
Quae  autem  sunt  in  vero  ita  se  habent :  Rcscripsissc  Valerianum  ad  Senatum, 
(I)  ut  episcopi  et  presbyteri  et  diaconi  incontinenti  animadvertantur.  The  dea- 
[p.  554.]  cons  had  before  been  exempted,  but  now  they  are  added  to  the  bishops 


Persecutions  of  Valerian.  97 

•and  presbyiers;  undoubtedly,  because  tl;c  enemies  of  the  Christians  had  learned 
that  they  supplied  the  place  of  the  bishops  and  presbyters,  and  carried  relief  to 
those  in  captivity.  By  this  law,  therefore,  all  the  men  of  tiie  holy  order,  if  they 
refused  to  pay  honor  and  worship  to  the  gods,  were  to  be  inunediately  put  to 
death ;  that  is,  they  were  to  be  led  from  the  tribunal  to  the  place  of  execution, 
without  being  for  a  time  kept  in  prison.  This  is  strikingly  illustrated  in  the  death 
of  Cyprian  himself,  as  described  in  his  Ada,  (apud  Ruinarlum,  et  alios).  When 
brought  before  the  proconsul,  he  was  first  asked  whether  he  was  a  papa  or 
bishop  of  Christians  ;  and  he  confessed  that  he  was.  He  was  then  commanded 
cccremoniari,  that  is,  to  worship  the  gods  in  the  Roman  manner ;  which  he  per- 
sisted in  refusing  to  do.  Then  sentence  of  death  was  passed  upon  him;  and, 
after  sentence,  he  was  conducted  from  the  praetorium  to  the  place  of  execution, 
and  there  beheaded.  This  was  the  uniform  mode  of  proceeding  against  men  in 
holy  orders,  during  the  Valerian  persecution.  The  policy  of  the  law  I  can  easily 
see.  It  was  scarcely  possible  to  prevent  the  people  from  flocking  to  their  teach- 
ers lodged  in  prison ;  and  their  last  words  and  exhortations  had  a  wonderful 
effect  upon  the  minds  of  the  people,  animating  them,  and  preparing  them  to 
meet  death  voluntarily  and  cheerfully  for  Christ's  sake;  of  this  there  are  extant 
many  examples.  The  kind  of  capital  punishment  to  be  inflicted,  was  not  pre- 
scribed by  the  law,  but  was  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  magistrate.  Hence,  we 
perceive  that  the  officers  of  Christian  churches  were  put  to  death  in  this  perse- 
cution in  a  diversity  of  modes. — (II.)  Senatores  vero  et  egregii  viri  et  equites 
Romani,  dignitate  amissa,  etiam  bonis  spolientur,  et  si  ademptis  facultatibua 
Christian!  esse  perseveravcrint,  capite  quoque  multentur,  matronas  vero  ademp- 
tis bonis  in  excilium  relegentur.  There  were,  then,  among  the  Christians  of 
that  age,  persons  of  both  sexes,  who  were  of  the  first  rank  and  the  highest  re- 
spectability; for,  otherwise,  this  part  of  the  law  would  have  been  superfluous. 
What  the  emperor  decreed  respecting  matrons,  must,  doubtless,  be  construed 
in  the  same  manner  as  the  decree  respecting  senators  and  knights :  viz.  that 
they  should  first  be  stripped  of  their  property,  and  then,  if  they  continued  to  be 
Christians  when  their  goods  were  confiscated,  they  were  to  be  sent  into  exile. 
It  is  most  probable  that  both,  after  the  first  part  of  the  sentence,  were  sent  to 
prison,  and  time  allowed  them  to  deliberate,  whether  they  would  return  to 
idolatry  or  persevere  in  the  Christian  religion. — (III.)  Cajsariani  autera  quicun- 
<j«e  vel  prius  confessi  fuerant,  vel  nunc  confess!  fuerint  confiscentur  et  vincti  in 
Caesarianas  possessiones  descripti  mittentur.  Subjecit  etiam  Valerianus  Impera- 
tor  orationi  sua3  exemplum  litterarum,  quas  ad  prcesides  provinciarum  de  nobis 
fecit :  quas  litteras  quotidie  speramus  venire.  The  Cccsariani  were,  undoubt- 
edly, the  persons  whom  St.  Paul  (Philip,  iv.  22.)  calls:  tous  U  m  naiTapo^  oiKia;, 
the  domestics,  the  servants,  the  freedmen,  belonging  to  the  emperor's  house- 
hold, and  residing  in  his  palace.  Why  the  emperor  particularized  them,  we  may 
learn  from  Dionysius,  (apud  Euseb.  L.  vii.  c.  10;  p.  256.)  who  tells  us  that  Va- 
lerian's house  or  family,  at  the  commencement  of  his  reign,  was  com-  [p.  655.] 
posed,  in  great  part,  of  Christians:  TSi  o  o/xof  dvroy  d-iCfO-t/icZf  Trtrrx^fmroy  x.clx 
«?  tK.K.\n7ix  0£oo.  Tota  ejus  familia  piis  hominibus  abundabat,  ac  Dei  ecclesia 
esse  videbatur.   Some  of  these  servants  of  Caesar,  therefore,  had  already,  in  the 

VOL.  IL  8 


98  Century  Ill—Section  19. 

beginning  of  the  persecution,  frankly  acknowledged  that  they  were  ChrlstLing, 
and  refused  to  apostatize  from  Christ :  nor  had  this  proved  injurious  to  theiDy 
because  the  first  mandates  of  the  emperor  reached  only  the  bishops  and  presby- 
ters among  the  Christians.  But  now,  both  those  who  had  before  confessed, 
and  those  who  should  liereafter  confess,  were  condemned  by  one  and  the  same 
law.  Provided  they  still  refused  to  renounce  the  Christian  worship,  the  em- 
peror commanded  them  to  be  confiscated ;  that  is,  not  only  their  estates  and 
property,  but  also  their  persons  were  to  be  transferred  to  the  public  treasury, 
and  they  were  to  be  distributed  in  bonds  over  the  domains,  or  the  estates  and 
farms  of  the  emperor,  to  perform  servile  labor  there.  Respecting  the  people, 
or  the  Christians  of  the  middle  and  lower  ranks,  the  emperor  decreed  nothing. 
These,  therefore,  were  out  of  danger,  and  could,  without  hazard,  attend  the 
execution  of  those  put  to  death  under  this  law.  The  Acts  of  Cyprian  (ed.  Rui- 
narl,  §  5.  p.  218.)  tell  us,  that  when  the  proconsul  pronounced  sentence  of  death 
on  Cyprian,  (tia-ba  frairum)  a  throng  of  the  brethren  were  present ;  and,  after 
the  sentence  was  pronounced,  this  throng  cried  out ;  Et  nos  cum  ipso  decole- 
mur.  Propter  hoc  tumultus  fratrum  exortus  est,  et  multa  turba  eum  prosecuta 
est.  In  this  throng  also  there  was  a  presbyter  and  several  deacons,  and  one 
8ub-deacon,  who  ministered  to  the  dying  man.  Yet,  neither  on  these,  nor  on 
the  Christian  people  that  fearlessly  accompanied  their  bishop  to  execution,  did 
any  one  lay  a  hand,  or  offer  them  any  violence.  More  examples  are  not  needed. 
We  know,  indeed,  from  Dionysius,  (apud  Euseh.)  and  from  other  sources,  that 
a  considerable  number  of  the  common  people  either  lost  their  lives  or  were 
eeverely  punished  in  this  persecution ;  but  as  the  emperor  had  decreed  no  pun- 
ishment against  that  class  of  persons,  it  must  be  considered  as  certain,  that  these 
persons  had  been  found,  either  in  assemblies  or  in  the  cemeteries,  and  were 
punished  for  the  violation  of  the  imperitorial  law  on  that  subject.  For  no  one 
can  doubt,  although  Cyprian  omits  the  mention  oi  it,  that  the  former  edict 
against  holding  assemblies  and  going  to  the  cemeteries  was  repeated  in  the  new 
edict.  Indeed,  we  know  from  two  rescripts  of  Gallienus,  (cited  by  Eusehius^ 
Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  13;  p.  267.)  that  Valerian  provided,  as  far  as  he  could, 
that  the  Christians  should  find  it  difficult  to  disregard  that  law.  For,  in  the  first 
rescript,  Gallienus  having  stopped  the  persecution  of  Christians,  says  to  certain 

bishops,  that  he  had  given  orders,  on-as   dTO    rin-wj'  rdv  ^fHKr-xiva-i/nuv   uTro^a^p-Aa-aia-iZ 

ut  cuncti  (milites,  as  I  suppose,)  a  religiosis  locis  abscedant.  Therefore  Vale* 
rian  had  ordered  the  soldiers  to  keep  guard  about  the  sacred  places  of  th» 
Christians,  or  the  places  where  they  assembled  to  worship  God.  In  the  second 
rescript  he  permits  the  bishops,  ra  twv  «a\oufAcvojv  )Loi/L(>iT>jpLa>v  diroXaf^l^dvtiv  x^'F^"-' 
utccemeteriorum  suorum  loca  rccuperarent.  The  cemeteries,  therefore,  had  been 
taken  from  the  Christians  by  order  of  the  emperor,  and  undoubtedly  confis- 
[p.  566.]  cated.  Whether  both  rescripts  refer  to  the  same  subject,  or  whether 
the  "  religious  places  "  of  the  former  are  different  from  the  "cemeteries  "  of  the 
latter,  is  not  clear,  and  I  will  not  therefore  decide.  Yet,  the  former  appears  to 
me  the  more  extensive,  and  to  remove  soldiers  from  all  the  sacred  places, 
because  the  recovery  of  the  cemeteries  is  made  the  subject  of  a  special 
grant. 


Persecution  of  Valerian.  99 

The  cause  of  the  chanfrc  of  the  first  and  milder  edict  into  this  far  severer 
and  more  cruel  one,  tlioug-li  not  expressly  stated  by  any  luicient  writer,  may 
Btill  be  easily  inferred  from  the  transactions  of  those  times.  Neitiier  the  bi^hopa 
and  presbyters,  nor  the  christian  people,  obeyed  the  emperor's  law  respcctinfr 
assemblies  and  tiie  cemeteries.  The  people  resorted,  in  great  numbers,  to  tho 
places  where  the  bishops  lived  in  exile;  and  the  bishops,  regardless  of  the  im- 
peritorial  mandate,  not  only  held  assemblies  in  those  phices,  but  also  did  what 
might  seem  to  be  of  a  more  treasonable  character,  namely,  they  hibored  to  con- 
vert the  pagans  to  Christianity,  and  to  enlarge  the  boundaries  of  the  church. 
We  ought  to  praise  these  holy  men  for  their  magnanimity  :  but  it  may  be  ques- 
tioned whether  it  would  not  have  been  better  to  temper  that  magnanimity  with 
prudence,  and  give  way  to  the  iniquity  of  the  times,  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  a 
greater  evil.  The  emperor  and  the  governors,  in  these  circumstances,  supposin^r 
themselves  to  be  contemned  by  the  Christians,  especially  by  the  bishops,  deter- 
mined to  coerce  them  by  sterner  laws.  That  this  is  no  fiction  appears  from  the 
history  of  Diomjsius  Alexandrinus  and  Cyprian.  We  learn  from  Eusebius 
(Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  11,  p.  258.)  that  when  Dionysius  was  sent  into  exile,  the 
prrcfect  said  to  him :  Nnllatenus  autem  licebit  vobis  (you  and  the  presbyters) 
conventus  agere.  Quod  si  quis  in  conventu  aliquo  fuerit  inventus,  is  sibi  ipse 
periculum  arccsset.  How  he  obeyed  this  interdict  of  the  emperors  he  teils  us  di- 
rectly after.  First,  thougii  absent,  he  took  care  that  the  Christians  remaining 
at  Alexandria  should  meet  together  frequently,  contrary  to  the  law :  Eos,  qui 
in  urbe  erant,  perinde  ac  si  adessem,  majore  studio  congregavi  in  ecclesiam,  ab- 
sens  quidem  corporo.  This  he  was  able  to  accomplish  by  means  of  the  four 
presbyters  whom  he  had  left  at  Alexandria,  together  with  several  deacons,  as  he 
afterwards  states.  Secondly,  in  the  place  of  his  exile  he  held  assemblies  of  the 
Christians  who  followed  him  from  the  city,  and  others  who  resorted  to  him 
from  every  quarter:  Apud  Cephro  vero  nobiscum  magna  fidelium  adfuit  multi- 
tudo,  partim  eorum,  qui  ab  urbe  nos  sequuti  fuerant,  partim  aliorum,  qui  ex 
reliqua  Egypto  confluebant.  Lastly,  he  labored  to  bring  new  converts  into 
the  church :  Ibi  quoque  januara  nobis  patefecit  Deus  ad  praedicationem  verbi 
sui.  -  -  Non  pauci  ex  gentilibus,  relictis  simulacris,  ad  Deum  conversi  sunt. 
All  these  things  were  excellent  in  themselves,  and  worthy  of  so  great  a  bishop: 
but  they  implied  contempt  for  the  emperor's  mandates.  It  is,  therefore,  not 
strange  that  soon  after  the  prefect,  who  had  knowledge  of  all  this,  removed 
Dionysius  to  more  distant  and  inhospitable  regions;  and  the  indignation  against 
the  Christians  increased  daily.  In  very  nearly  the  same  manner  Cyprian  con- 
ducted, in  his  exile  at  Curubis,  as  appears  evident  from  his  life,  written  [p.  657.] 
by  his  deacon  Ponlius.  For  he  went  thither,  attended  by  many  persons,  and  a 
number  of  the  brethren  there  visited  him.  (See  ^  12.)  Neither  were  these  only 
the  poor  aud  humble,  but  likewise  the  most  noble  and  distinguished.  Says 
Pontius  Q  14.)  :  Conveniebant  plures  egregii  et  clarissimi  ordinis  et  sanguinis, 
sed  et  saeculi  nobilitate  generosi.  And  these  congregated  together,  he  in- 
structed very  frequently  with  his  discourses  and  exhortations:  Ille  servos  Dei 
cxhortationibus  dominicis  instruebat,  et  ad  calcandas  passiones  hujus  temporis 
contemplatione  supervcnturre  claritatis  animabat.     Thus  the  Christian  bishops 


100  Century  Ill.—Scction  20. 

and  presbyters  themselves,  because  tliey  would  prosecute  their  work  of  advanc- 
ing the  Christinn  cause,  rather  than  obey  the  emporor's  will,  provoked  the  tyrant 
to  enact  severer  laws  against  them. 

(3)  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  (apud  Euseh.\l\^i.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  10,  p.  255.) 
thought  tlie  words  of  St.  John,  in  the  Apocalypse,  (eh.  13:5.)  were  fulHlled  in 
Valerian  :  whether  he  was  correct  or  not  does  not  effect  the  present  argument: 
Et  datum  est  illi  os  loquens  magna  et  impia:  Et  data  est  illi  potestas  et  menses 
quadraginta  duo.  Hence  learned  men  have  rightly  inferred  that  the  Valerian 
persecution  continued  into  the  fourth  year.  And  that  after  Valerian  was  cap- 
tured by  the  Persians,  his  son  GalHenus  sent  rescripts  throughout  the  Roman 
world,  staying  the  persecution,  and  giving  Christians  liberty  freely  to  profess 
their  religion,  is  fully  attested  by  Eusebius,  (Hist  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  13,  p.  262.) 
where  he  confirms  his  statement,  by  quoting  the  very  words  of  the  rescripts. 
Gallienus  seems  to  have  regarded  the  sad  fate  of  his  father  as  a  punishment 
inflicted  on  him  by  the  Christian's  God,  for  the  persecution  of  his  servants. 

(4)  A  memorable  example  of  this  kind  is  stated  by  Eusebius,  (Hist.  Eccles. 
L.  vii.  c.  15,  p.  263.)  Marinus  was  put  to  death  at  Ceesarea,  after  the  restoration 
of  peace  to  the  Christian  community  by  Gallienus.  He  was  wealthy,  prospe- 
rous, and  of  a  good  fiimily,  and  he  aspired  to  the  honor  of  a  centurionship  among 
the  Romans.  But  when  near  the  attainment  of  his  object  he  was  accused  of 
being  a  Christian,  before  Achaeus  the  judge,  by  some  one  who  was  his  rival 
candidate  for  the  office.  Marinus  confessed  the  charge.  The  judge  gave  him 
three  hours  to  consider  whether  he  would  sacrifice  to  the  gods  or  persevere  in 
the  Christian  faith.  When  the  time  had  elapsed,  Marinus  professed  Christ  with 
greater  promptitude  than  before,  and  cheerfully  submitted  to  capital  punish- 
ment. The  proceeding  with  this  man,  most  evidently,  w^as  not  according  to 
the  edict  of  Valerian,  which  had  already  been  abrogated  by  Gallienus,  but  ac- 
cording to  the  ancient  law  of  Trajan.  For  an  accuser  appeared  :  The  criminal, 
on  confession,  was  required  to  renounce  Christ,  and,  as  he  would  not  do  it,  he 
was  forthwith  led  to  execution.  From  this  example,  therefore,  it  appears  that 
the  ancient  laws  of  the  emperors  against  Christians  retained  all  their  force,  even 
when  milder  ones  had  been  enacted;  and,  therefore,  under  the  milder  emperors, 
[p.  558.]  and  in  times  of  tranquillity,  the  governors  could  pass  sentence  upon 
the  Christians  who  were  formally  accused  and  confessed  the  charge.  The  corps 
of  Marinus,  ODC  Asturius,  a  Roman  senator,  and  a  man  of  the  highest  respecta- 
bility, bore  away  on  his  own  shoulders,  and  committed  to  burial ;  as  we  learn 
from  the  same  Eusebius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  16,  p.  264.)  And  this  he  could 
do  with  impunity  and  perfect  safety :  and  the  reason  is  obvious.  According  to 
to  Trajan's  law,  the  judge  could  not  punish  without  an  accuser,  and  a  man  of 
such  high  reputation  and  distinction,  and  the  personal  friend  of  the  emperors, 
no  one  either  dared  or  wished  to  accuse  before  the  court. 

§  XX.  Persecution  nnder  Aurciian.  If,  therefore,  a  few  ex- 
amples be  excepted,  of  Christians  put  to  death  by  governors  who 
abused  their  power,  the  Christians  enjoyed  a  good  degree  of  tran- 
quillity under  Gallienus,  who  reigned  eight  years  with  his  brother 


Persecution   of  AurcUan.  101 

Valerian,  and  also  under  his  successor  Claudius^  wlio  reigned  two 
3^ears.(')  Aarelian^  wlio  succeeded  Claudius  in  the  year  270, 
although  immoderately  given  to  idolatry-,  and  j^ossessing  a  strong 
aversion  to  the  Christians,  yet  devised  no  measures  for  their  in- 
jury dui-ing  four  years.  (')  But  in  the  fifth  year  of  his  reign, 
eitlicrirom  his  own  superstition,  or  prompted  by  the  superstition 
of  otliers,  he  prepared  to  persecute  them :(')  and,  had  he  lived,  so 
cruel  and  ferocious  was  his  disposition,  and  so  much  was  he  in- 
fluenced by  the  priests  and  the  admirers  of  the  gods,  that  this  per- 
secution would  have  been  more  cruel  than  any  of  the  preceding. 
But  before  his  new  edicts  had  reached  all  the  provinces,  and 
when  he  was  in  Thrace,  in  the  year  275,  he  was  assassinated  by 
the  instigation  of  Mnestheus,  whom  he  had  threatened  to  punish. 
And,  therefore,  only  a  few  Christians  suffered  for  their  piety 
under  him.(') 

(1)  That  in  the  reign  of  Claudius,  a  few  Christicins  here  and  tliere  were 
put  to  death  by  the  governors,  undoubtedly  under  cover  of  the  ancient  laws,  is 
evident  from  the  instances  adduced  by  Lupius,  in  his  Notes  on  the  Epitaph  of 
Severa,  (^  ii.  p.  6,  &,c.)  Among  these  examples  is  that  of  Severa  herself,  whose 
particular  Epitaph  was  dug  up  in  the  Via  Salaria,  A.  D.  1730,  and  has  been 
elucidated  by  a  long  and  erudite  commentary. 

(2)  With  great  unanimity,  the  modern  writers  have  stated,  that  Aurelian 
in  the  first  years  of  his  reign  was  kind  and  friendly  to  the  Christians,  but  on  what 
grounds  or  authority  I  know  not.  Fori  no  where  find  any  testimony  that  he  had 
this  goodwill,  nor  do  I  meet  with  any  specimen  of  it.  I  know  that  Eusehius  tella 
us,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  30.  p.  282.)  that  when  the  Christians  appealed  to  this 
emperor  against  Paul  of  Samosata,  who  refused  to  quit  the  liouse  of  the  church, 
after  he  was  condemned  in  a  council  for  corrupt  sentiments  concerning  Christ, 
the  emperor  ordered  him  to  be  put  out  by  force;  and  this  decision  against  Paul 
Eusehius  seems  to  regard  as  evidence  of  his  friendly  regards  for  the  [p.  559.] 
Christians.  But,  if  I  am  not  greatly  deceived,  the  followers  of  Eusehius  infer 
from  this  act  of  Aurelian,  more  than  is  found  in  it.  We  will  grant  that,  at  that 
time,  Aurelian  had  not  indulged  feelings  of  hostility  to  the  Christians,  nor  de- 
termined on  their  extirpation.  But  how  he  could  have  entertained  kind  and 
friendly  feelings  towards  them,  I  cannot  understand,  while  he  was  burning  with 
zeal  for  the  worship  of  those  gods  which  the  Christians  execrated,  and,  moreover, 
spoke  contemptuously  of  the  sacred  rites  of  the  Christians.  For  thus  he  wrote 
in  an  Epistle  to  the  Senate,  (preserved  by  Vopiscus  in  his  Aurelius,  c.  20.  llistor. 
Augu^tee,  torn.  ii.  p.  463.):  Miror  vos,  patres  sancti,  tamdiu  de  aperiendis  Sybll- 
linis  dubitasse  libris,  perinde  quasi  in  Chris iianorum  ecclesia,non  in  temple  Deo- 
rum  omnium,  tractarelis.  In  this  language  there  is  a  very  invidious  comparison 
between  the  Christian  religion  and  the  worship  and  sacred  rites  of  tlie  gods ; 


102  Century  III.— Section  20. 

and  it  indicates  a  mind  wholly  averse  from  the  Christians,  and  paying  all 
reverence  to  the  gods.  He  seems  to  suppose  that  a  certain  divine  and  celestial 
influence  prevailed  in  a  temple  of  the  gods,  which  illuminates  the  minds  of 
those  who  deliberate  there,  and  shows  them  what  to  do ;  but  that  the  churches 
of  Christians  lack  this  influence,  and,  therefore,  everything  proceeds  tardily  and 
heavily  in  their  councils.  But  this  very  rej)resentation  is  honorary  to  the  Chris- 
tian assemblies  of  that  age  :  for  it  shows  that  nothing  was  done  in  them  in  a 
headlong  and  tumultuous  manner,  but  everything  was  maturely  considered  and 
carefully  weighed,  so  that  the  consultations  continued  often  for  a  long  time 
Moreover,  when  we  come  to  treat  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  we  will  show  that  Au- 
relians  decision  against  him  is  no  evidence  of  any  love  for  Christians,  but  of 
his  hatred  to  Zenobia,  a  queen  of  the  east. 

(3)  Eusebius  tells  us  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  30  ;  p.  283.)  that  Aurclian  was 
prompted  to  persecute  the  Christians  (t/s-i  (iovx^li-,)  by  certain  coiuiseUors.  Per- 
haps this  was  true.  It  might  be  that  either  the  Platonic  philosophers,  wiio 
possessed  great  influence  in  those  times,  or  the  heathen  priests,  who  had  many 
friends  at  court,  and  especially  among  the  ladies  of  rank,  represented  to  the 
emperor  that  the  destruction  of  the  Christians  would  prove  useful  to  the 
empire.  But  whoever  will  survey  the  life  of  Aurelian,  will  perceive  that  he 
needed  no  external  influences  to  bring  him  to  assail  the  Christians,  for  his  innate 
cruelty  and  superstition  w^ere  sufficient  of  themselves  to  prompt  him  to  such  a 
nefarious  resolution.  Scarcely  any  one  among  the  emperors,  before  Constan- 
tine  the  Great,  was  more  superstitious,  or  more  devoted  to  the  imaginary  deities. 
His  mother  was  a  priestess  of  the  sun :  (see  Vopiscus  in  his  Aurelian,  c.  iv.  p. 
420).  And  her  son,  in  consequence,  all  his  life  reverenced  the  sun  as  the 
supreme  deity.  He  closes  an  oration,  in  which  he  thanks  Valerian  for  the 
honors  he  had  received  from  him,  in  these  words:  Dii  faciant  et  Deus  certus  Sol, 
(so  then  he  placed  more  confidence  in  the  sun  than  in  all  the  other  gods,)  ut  el 
senatus  de  me  sic  sentiat.  (Ibid.  c.  xiv.  p.  451).  When  the  forces  of  Zenobia  had 
[p.  560.]  been  vanquished  at  Emessa,  he  supposed  that  he  was  indebted  for  the 
victory  to  the  good  providence  of  the  sun  ;  and,  therefore,  "  immediately  after 
the  battle,  he  repaired  to  the  temple  of  Heliogabalus,  as  if  to  pay  his  vows  for 
the  public  favor."  (Ibid.  c.  xxv.  pp.  478,  479).  And  "  the  garments  eniiched 
with  jewels,"  which  had  been  stripped  from  the  vanquished  Persians,  Armenians, 
and  other  enemies,  he  consectrated  in  the  temple  of  the  sun.  (Ibid.  c.  xxviii. 
p.  483).  When  Palmyra  was  captured,  and  the  infuriate  soldiers  had  plundered 
the  temple  of  the  sun,  he  was  more  solicitous  for  nothing  than  to  have  that 
sacred  edifice  magnificently  repaired  and  dedicated  anew.  To  Ceionius  Bassus, 
whom  he  had  intrusted  with  this  business,  he  wrote:  Habes  trcccntas  auri  li- 
bras  e  Zenobia?  capsulis  :  habes  argcnti  mille  octingenta  pondo.  De  Palmyre- 
norum  bonis  habes  gemmas  regias.  Ex  his  omnibus  fac  cohonestari  templum  : 
mihi  et  Diis  immortalibus  gratissimum  feceris.  Ego  ad  senatum  siribam,  petens, 
ut  mittat  Pontificem,  qui  dedicet  templum.  (Ibid.  c.  xxxi.  p.  491).  Afterwards  ho 
erected  a  very  magnificent  temple  of  the  sun  at  Rome,  (Ibid.  c.  xxxix.  p.  522,) 
and  placed  in  it  much  gold  and  jewelry.  (Ibid.  p.  523).  And  hence,  after  his  death, 
Aurelianus  Tacitus  said,  hi  his  oration  before  the  senate:  Quindecim  raillia 


Efforts  of  Philosophers.  103 

librarum  auri  ex  ejus  liberalitate  ununi  tc-.net  templum  (solis):  omnia  in  urbo 
fana  ejus  niicant  donia  (Ibid.  c.  xll.  p.  527).  On  one  of  his  coins,  nienlioned  by 
Ezrcliiel  Spanheimy  (de  usu  et  prajstantia  numismat.  vol.  ii.  p,  485.)  is  tliia 
le^^iMid  :  iSol  Dominus  imperii  Rumani. — Now,  who  can  wonder  that  a  prineo 
intlamed  with  such  insane  zeal  ibr  the  worship  of  the  sun,  should  have  deter- 
mined to  assail  with  the  sword,  and  to  persecute  with  edicts,  those  Christiana 
who  deemed  the  sun  unworthy  of  divine  honors  ? 

(4)  Eusebius  states  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  30;  p.  285,  &c.)  that  Aurelian 
fell  by  parricidal  hands,  while  preparing  for  his  intended  assault  upon  the 
Chrisiians,  and,  as  it  were,  in  the  very  act  of  subscribing  the  edicts  against  them. 
This  obscure  statement  is  explained  by  Lactantius,  (de  mortibus  persecutorum, 
c.  6.)  who  informs  us  that  his  edicts  had  reached  only  to  the  provinces  border- 
ing on  Thrace,  and  says:  Protinus  inter  initia  sui  furoris  cxtinctus  est.  Non- 
dum  ad  provincias  ulteriores  eruenta  ejus  edicta  pervenerant,  et  jam  Cajnofrurio, 
qui  locus  est  Thraciai,  cruentus  humi  jacebat. 

§  XXI.  Efforts  of  the  Philosophers  against  the  Christians.   Wllile 
the  emperors  and  magistrates  were  striving  to  subvert  the  Chris- 
tian commonwealth  by  means  of  Laws  and  punishments,  it  was 
assailed  with  craft  and  subtly,  during  this  whole  century,  by  the 
philosophers  of  the  Ammonian  school;  who  assumed  the  name  of 
Platonists,  extended  their  discipline  over  nearly  all  the  Eoman 
empire,  and  gradually  obscured  the  glory  of  all  the  other  sects. 
For,  as  most  of  the  people  who  cultivated  piety  and  virtue,  [p.  561.] 
more  readily  repaired  to  the  Christians  than  to  the  schools  of  the 
Philosophers,  and  many  went  also  from  the  schools  of  the  Pla- 
tonists themselves, (')  they  were  induced  to  resist  to  the  utmost  a 
sect  which  threatened  ruin  to  their  prosperity  and  fame.     Hence 
Porpliyry^  a  Syrian  or  Tyrian,  the  corypha3us  of  the  Platonist 
sect  in  this  century,  (according  to  Plotinus^)  a  man  distinguished 
for  his  subtlety  and  acuteness,  composed  a  long  treatise  against 
the  Christians ;  which,  it  is  to  be  regretted,  the  laws  of  the  Chris- 
tian emperors  have  caused  to  disappear :  for  the  few  fragmcuts 
of  it  still  remaining,show  that  Forpltyry  was  no  very  formidable 
adversary .(')  Others  of  this  sect  adopted  into  their  creed  tlie  best 
and  most  sublime  precepts  of  Christianity,  and  especially  those 
relating  to  piety  and  morality,  so  that  they  might  appear  to  teach 
religion  and  virtue  with  as  much   purity  and   sanctity  as  the 
Christians,     Others,  again,  in  order  to  weaken   the  Christians' 
argument  from  the  life  and  miracles  of  the  Saviour,  labored  to 
show,  tliat  among  the  more  devout  worshippers  of  the  gods,  tliere 


104  Century  III. — Section  21. 

had  been  men  not  inferior,  and  perhaps  actually  superior,,  to^ 
Jesus  Christy  both  in  their  origin  and  virtue,  and  in  the  number 
and  magnitude  of  their  miracles ;  and  for  this  purpose  they  drew 
up  the  lives  of  Archytas  of  Tarcntum,  PylliagoraSy  AjJoUonitts 
Tyanteus,  and  other  men  of  great  fame ;  and,  stufiing  these 
biographies  with  silly  fables,  they  put  them  into  the  hands  of  the 
common  people.(^)  The  men  of  this  class  did  not  revile  Jesus 
Christ,  nor  deny  that  the  precepts  which  the  Christians  taught  as 
coming  from  him,  were,  for  the  most  part,  excellent  and  com- 
mendable, but  they  devised  a  sort  of  harmony  of  all  religions,  or 
a  universal  religion,  which  might  embrace  the  Christian  among 
the  rest.  This  plan,  which  was  contrived  by  Ammonius,  the 
founder  of  the  sect,  required  the  admission  of  only  so  much  of 
the  Christian  system  as  was  not  utterly  repugnant  to  idolatry,  or 
to  the  ancient  popular  religions. 

(1)  Respecting  the  conversion  to  Christianity  of  many  Platonists,  and  espe- 
cially of  the  disciples  of  Plolinus,  the  head  man  of  the  Platonist  school  in  this 
century,  we  have  the  following  very  lucid  passage  in  the  writings  of  Augustine^ 
(Epist.  Ixviii.  ad  Dioscorum,  cap.  v.  ^  33.  0pp.  torn.  ii.  p.  260.)  :  Tunc  Plotini 
schola  Ronice  floruit,  habuitque  condiscipulos  multos,  acutissimos  viros.  Sed 
aliqui  eorum  mnglcnrum  arlium  curiositate  depravati  sunt,  aliqui  Dominum, 
[p.  562.]  Jesum  Christum  ipsius  veritatis  atque  sapientia3  incommiitabilis,  quam 
conabantur  attingero,  cognoscentes  gestare  personam,  in  ejus  TniUtiam  trails 
sieruni. 

(2)  On  the  work  of  Porphyry  against  the  Christians,  may  be  consulted  Lu- 
cas Holstenius,  (de  Vita  Porphyrii,  c.  xi.)  Jo.  Fran.  Buddeuii,  (Isagoge  in  Theo- 
logiam,  torn.  ii.  p.  1009,  &c.)  and  Jo.  Alb.  Fabricius,  (Lux  Evangelii  toti  orbi 
exoriens,  p.  154).  To  the  observations  made  by  these  authors  I  have  nothing 
to  add. 

(3)  The  Life  of  Py/liagoras  was  written  in  this  century  by  Porplujry,  and  in 
the  next  by  Jamblickus,  and  both,  unquestionably,  in  order  to  make  that  philo- 
Bopher  appear  in  all  respects  the  equal  of  Jesus  Christ,  but  especially  so  in  his 
miracles  and  in  the  wisdom  of  his  precepts.  This  is  demonstrated  by  Ludolph 
KUster,  m  the  notes  to  his  edition  of  the  Life  of  Jamblichus  ;  and  any  one  will 
readily  see  it,  if  he  will  compare  eitlier  of  tiiese  biograpiiies  with  the  history  of 
our  Saviour :  (See  Kusteri  Adnot.  ad  Jamblichi,  cap.  ii.  p.  7.  et  cap.  xix.  p.  78). 
No  two  lambs  could  be  more  alike  than  Christ  and  Pytiiagoras,  if  all  were  tru» 
which  those  two  biographers  have  stated.  The  fable  of  Apollonius  Tyana3U8, 
which  Philostralus  composed  in  this  century,  by  command  of  Julia,  the  em- 
press, wife  to  the  emperor  Severus,  is  abundantly  known;  and  none  among  the 
learned  need  to  be  informed  that  Hierocles,  a  Platonic  philosopher  of  the  fourth 
century,  contrasted  Pythagoras  with  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  Eusehius  of  Cassarea 


Efforts  of  Philosophers.  105 

wrote  a  special  treatise  against  the  book.  That  Philoslratus  aimed,  in  his  very- 
splendid,  and  yet  most  stupidly  mendacious  book,  to  suggest  such  a  comparison 
between  Cln-ist  and  Apollonius,  has  long  been  shown  by  the  learned  men  who 
are  cited  and  approved  by  Godfrey  Olearius,  the  editor  of  Philostratus;  (Pajfat. 
p.  xxxix).  Moreover,  as  Christ  imparted  to  his  friends  and  legates  the  power 
of  working  miracles ;  so  also,  to  make  the  resemblance  perfect,  these  IMatonista 
represent  Fijlhagoras  as  imparting  the  same  power  to  several  of  his  fol lowers,  to 
Empedocles,  Epimenides,  Abaris,  and  others.  See  Jamblichus,  (Vita  Pythagorae, 
c.  28.  p.  114).  To  exhibit  the  designs  and  the  impudence  of  this  sect,  I  will  cito 
a  Latin  translation  of  the  words  of  Jamblichus  in  the  above  cited  place.  Having 
spoken  of  some  miracles  of  Pythagoras,  he  adds  :  Millia  alia,  hisque  diviuiora, 
magisque  miranda,  qua?  de  viro  traduntur.  -  -  Quorum  compotes  etiam  facti 
Empedocles  Agrigentinus,  Epimenides  Cretensis  et  Abaris  IJyperboreus,  multis 
in  locis  talia  facinora  desigiiarunt.      Satis  autem  nota   sunt  ipsorum   opera. 

Moreover,  these  comparisons  were  made,  not  so  much  to  disparage  Christ, 
as  to  injure  Christianity.  For  those  who  compared  Christ  with  Pythgoras,  with 
Apollonius  Tyana3us,  with  Empedocles,  with  Archy  tas,  &c.  tacitly  admitted  that 
Christ  was  a  divine  person,  far  superior  to  the  common  order  of  men,  [p.  563.] 
the  Lord  of  demons,  the  controler  of  nature,  and  a  great  benefactor  to  the 
human  race :  but  they  affirmed  that  the  Christians  misunderstood  and  perverted 
the  opinions  of  their  master  and  guide.  iVs  they  wished  to  reduce  all  modes  of 
philosophising,  whether  Greeeian  or  barbarian,  to  the  one  mode  of  the  Platon- 
isis,  and  explained  this  mode  according  to  the  Egyptian  notions  of  God  and 
nature;  and,  moreover,  labored  to  bring  all  the  religions  of  the  world  into  har- 
mony with  this  Platonico-iEgyptian  system,  and  as  they  did  not  deny  that 
Christ  taught  a  religion  which  was  good  and  useful,  it  became  necessary  that 
they  should  maintain,  that  what  the  Christians  inculcated  was,  in  great  measure, 
diverse  from  the  opinions  of  [Christ]  their  master.  They,  therefore,  wished  to 
accomplish  two  objects  by  the  above-mentioned  comparisons  : — First,  to  prevent 
any  credit  being  given  to  the  assertion  of  the  Christians,  that  Christ  was  GoJ, 
or  the  Son  of  God.  For  if  there  were  to  be  found  among  men,  individuals 
possessing  the  same  power  of  changing  and  controling  the  laws  of  nature,  as 
had  been  possessed  by  Christ,  then  the  Christians'  argument  for  Christ's  di- 
vinity, derived  from  his  miracles,  would  fall  to  the  ground.  Their  second  object 
was,  to  bring  men  to  believe  that  Christ  had  no  design  to  subvert  the  ancient 
pagan  religions, but  merely  to  purify  and  reform  them.  Now,if  among  the  most 
devout  of  the  pagan  worshippers,  tliere  were  found  persons  the  equals,  and 
perhaps  the  superiors  of  Clirist  in  great  achievements,  then  it  would  necessarily 
follow,  that  those  are  mistaken  who  suppose  Christ  wished  to  abolish  the 
temples  and  the  ceremonies  of  tlie  pagan  worship. 

To  the  list  of  Phitonists  who  labored  to  subvert  the  Christian  religion  by 
cunning  devices,  A;ju/etus  was,  not  long  since,  added  by  the  very  learned  and  in- 
genious William  Warburion.'m  his  English  work,  The  Divine  Le<j^ation  nf  Moses 
Demonstrated  (vol.  ii.  p.  117).  For  he  thinks  that  Apuleius,  a  man  excessively 
superstitious  and  hostile  to  the  Christians,  both  personally  and  from  zeal  to  his 
sect,  wrote  his  well-known  Metamorphosis,  or  fable  of  the  Golden  Ass,  for  the 


106  Centunj  III.— Section  22. 

purpose  of  making  it  appear  that  the  mysteries  of  the  gods  possessed  the 
highest  efficacy  for  purifying  and  iiealing  the  minds  of  men,  and  were  therefore 
greatly  to  be  preferred  to  the  Christian  sacred  rites.  With  his  accustomed 
penetration  and  skill  in  matters  of  antiquity,  this  distinguished  man  has  disco- 
vered in  Apuleius  some  things  never  before  observed  by  any  one.  Among  these, 
the  most  noticeable  is,  that  he  thinks  it  may  be  inferred  with  much  probability 
from  the  Defence  of  Apuieius  now  extant,  that  the  Licinius  Aemilianus,  who 
accused  Apuleius  of  magic  before  the  proconsul  of  Africa,  was  a  Christian. 
But  as  to  the  object  of  the  fable  of  the  Ass,  which  this  very  learned  man  sup- 
poses to  have  been  to  exalt  the  pagan  mysteries,  and  tiirow  contempt  on  Cliris- 
tianity,  I  have  my  doubts;  because  I  see  nothing  adduced  from  that  fable, 
which  it  would  be  dithcult  to  explain  in  a  different  manner. 

§  XXII.  The  First  Movements  of  Diocletian.  Diocletian  AVas  ad- 
vanced to  the  government  of  the  empire  A.  D.  284 ;  and  being  by 
[p.  664:.]  nature  more  inclined  to  clemency  than  to  cruelty,  he  suf- 
fered the  Christians  to  live  in  tranquillit}^,  and  to  propagate  their 
religion  without  restraint.  Bat  in  the  subsequent  year,  285,  he 
took  for  his  colleague  in  the  government  Maximian  Herculius^  a 
man  who  is  represented  as  most  inveterately  hostile  to  the  Chris- 
tians, and  as  having  punished  many  of  them,  both  in  Gaul  and  at 
Rome,  with  extreme  rigor;  nay,  as  having  put  to  death  the 
whole  Thebcean  legion,  composed  of  Christians,  because  the}^  re- 
fused to  sacrifice  to  the  gods  at  the  Leman  lake.  I  say,  he  is  so 
represented ;  for  the  alleged  examples  and  proofs  of  such  atrocity 
are  not  of  so  high  authority  that  they  cannot  be  called  in  ques- 
tion and  invalidated.(')  It  is  more  certain  that,  near  the  end  of 
the  century,  Maximian  Galerius,  (whom  the  two  emperors  had 
created  a  Csesar,  together  with  Constantius  Chlonis^  in  the  3^ear 
292,)  persecuted  both  the  ministers  of  his  palace  and  the  soldiers, 
who  professed  Christianity,  removing  some  of  them  from  office, 
harassing  others  with  reproaches  and  insults,  and  even  causing 
some  to  be  put  to  death.Q  But  this  hatred  of  Galerius^  because 
it  did  not  reach  very  far,  and  seemed  to  be  tolerated  rather  than 
approved  by  the  two  emperors,  did  not  prevent  the  daily  ad- 
vance of  the  Christian  cause;  and  the  Christians,  rendered  se- 
cure by  long-continued  peace,  deviated  sadly  from  the  primitive 
sanctity  and  piety.(') 

(1)  Roman  Catholic  writers  mention  numerous  martyrs,  put  to  death  dur- 
ing the  first  years  of  Diocletian  s  reign,  in  Gaul,  at  Rome,  and  elsewhere  ;  but 
as  the  early  writers  say  nothing  of  them,  and  especially  Eusebius,  who  tells  us 


First  Acts  of  Diocletian.  107 

that  tlie  condition  of  the  Christians  during  the  eighteen  first  years  of  Dio- 
cletian  was  very  quicf,  and  almost  wliolly  free  from  perils;  (see  his  Hist. 
Ecclcs.  L.  viii.  e.  1,  p.  291.)  these  writers  either  contend  that  Euscbius  was 
better  acquainted  with  the  Eastern  ciiurcii  tl'.an  the  Western,  or  lliey  tell  us, 
that  these  martyrs  were  overlooked  by  the  ancients,  because  they  were  put  to 
deatii  not  by  a  public  mandate  of  the  emperor  Dioclelian,  but  only  by  the  private 
orders  of  Maximian  Herculius.  Such  as  choose  m:iy  rest  satisfied  with  this 
exphination ;  but  I  must  confess,  there  is  no  rashness  in  doubting  the  reality  of 
all  tiiese  martyrdoms.  The  whole  history  of  them  is  based  on  the  credibility  of 
certain  Acts  and  martyrologies,  to  which  no  one  will  commit  himself,  if  he 
judges  that  confidence  is  to  be  placed  in  none  but  certain  and  approved  autho- 
rities. No  one  can  be  ignorant,  that  the  catalogues  of  martyrs  in  use  in  some 
churches,  are  of  a  most  uncertain  character,  and  are  collected  for  the  most  part 
from  dubious  ancient  and  obscure  reports;  nor  are  the  narratives,  [p.  565.] 
which  have  in  various  places  been  current  for  several  centuries,  entitled  to  any 
greater  respect.  How  few  are  the  undisputed  Acts  of  the  saints  and  martyrs 
in  the  three  first  centuries,  may  be  learned  from  Theodore  Ruinari,  who  at- 
tempted to  collect  them  all,  and  did  make  a  collection.  This  learned  man 
published  a  moderate  sized  volume;  and  he  would  have  made  out  a  very  little 
one,  if  he  had  determined  to  admit  nothing  but  what  is  above  all  suspicion. 

Of  all  the  martyrs  whom  Maximian  Herculius  h  said  to  have  sacrified  to  his 
gods,  there  are  none  more  celebrated  and  noble  than  those  that  composed  the 
Thebivan  legion,  who,  from  the  place  where  they  were  slain,  were  called  the 
Agaunian  Martyrs.  Their  relics  are  spread  almost  all  over  the  Romish 
church,  and  are  held  in  special  reverence  in  France,  Switzerland,  and  Italy. 
Nor  is  this  reverence  of  recent  date,  originating  in  those  centuries  in  which  all 
Europe  was  involved  in  ignorance;  when  superstition  every  year  created  new 
martyrs.  For  it  appears  from  the  works  of  AvUils,  of  Vienne,  (published  by 
Ja.  !Sirmond,)  who  flourished  near  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century,  that  at 
that  time  there  was  at  Agaunum,  a  church  dedicated  to  these  martyrs,  and  that 
in  it  a  festal  day  was  observed  in  memory  of  them.  (See  Ja.  Sirmond,  0pp. 
torn.  ii.  p.  93-97.)  This  I  mention,  because  I  perceive  that  some  learned  men, 
who  are  opposed  to  these  martyrs,  maintain  that  the  knowledge  of  them  was 
first  brought  to  light  in  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century,  nay,  in  the  seventh 
century.  As  Maximian  Herculius  was  marching  an  army  into  Gaul  to  quell 
some  commotions  there,  having  passed  the  Alps,  he  arrived  at  the  parts  of  Valaia 
on  the  Leman  lake;  and  to  prepare  his  troops  for  contending  under  better  au- 
spices, he  ordered  a  general  lustration,  and  that  the  troops  should  swear  fealty 
on  the  altars  of  the  gods.  This  mandate  of  the  general  was  resisted  by  the 
Thebaean  legion,  which  had  Mauritius  for  its  commander,  had  just  come  from  the 
East,  and  was  wholly  composed  of  Christians.  Maximian  therefore  twice 
decimated  it,  that  is,  caused  every  tenth  man  to  be  put  to  death ;  and  as  this 
rigor  was  wholly  insuflicient  to  overcome  its  constancy,  he  ordered  his  army  to 
fall  upon  it  and  slay  the  entire  legion.  This  is  the  substance  of  that  Passio 
Sauclorum  Maurilii  ac  sociorum  ejus,  which  is  said  to  have  been  conii)osed  by 
Evcherius,  bishop  of  Lyons,  in  the  sixth  century,  and    which,  after  others, 


lOS  Century  Ill—Section  22. 

Tiieod.  Ruinart  published,  witli  learned  notes,  in  I)is  Acta  Martyrum  sincora  et 
selecta,  p.  271,  &:c.  The  adversaries  of  the  Romish  cliurch,  who  have  contro- 
verted so  many  of  the  otheridleged  martyrdoms,  all  left  the  ^'  Happy  Legion^''  as 
this  legion  was  called,  untouched  down  to  the  eighteenth  century,  except  by 
here  and  there  an  individual.  Nor  was  this  strange,  because  there  is  scarcely  any 
other  narrative  of  martyrdom  that  is  confirmed  by  so  many  very  ancient  docu- 
ments and  testimonies  as  this  is.  Perhaps,  also,  many  feared  they  should  de- 
[p.  566.]  tract  from  the  honor  of  Christianity  if  they  brought  under  discussion 
this  so  illustrious  and  extraordinary  example  of  early  Christian  fortitude 
and  constancy.  Others  may  have  been  so  charmed  with  the  story  of  the  Thun- 
dering Legion,  of  which  we  have  before  spoken,  under  Marcus  Antoninus,  that 
they  could  see  nothing  in)probable  in  this  Christian  Thehccan  Legion  serving 
under  Maximian  Herculius.  For  if  a  whole  legion  of  Christians  was  admitted 
into  the  Roman  army  under  Marcus,  much  more  might  such  a  legion  be  counte- 
nanced under  JMaximian,  when  the  Christian  cause  had  been  more  widely  ex- 
tended and  better  established.  But  in  this  eighteenth  century,  John  DubordieUj 
a  very  learned  man,  who  had  seen  the  supposed  bones  of  Mauritius  and  some 
of  his  fellow-soldiers  honored  with  great  superstition  at  Turin,  made  a  formal 
attack  upon  the  Theba3an  legion,  and  was  the  first  to  class  it  among  the  fables 
of  former  ages,  in  a  book  published  at  Amsterdam,  in  1705,  8vo.,  under  the  title : 
"  Dissertation  critique  sur  le  Martyre  de  la  Legion  Thebeenne."  Three  years 
after,  Ja.  HoUinger,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Switzerland,  (tom.  i.  L.  ii. 
§  23,  &c.)  followed  the  example  of  Dubordieu,  and  confirmed  his  positions 
with  new  arguments  of  no  inconsiderable  weight.  Both  reasoned  ingeniously 
and  learnedly.  But  the  dissertation  of  the  latter,  as  it  constituted  a  small 
part  of  a  large  volume,  and  was  written  in  the  German  language,  did  less 
harm  to  the  Thebsean  legion  than  the  treatise  of  the  former ;  which,  being 
written  in  an  elegant  style,  was  soon  circulated  over  a  large  part  of  Europe, 
and  forcibly  urged  those  of  moderate  learning,  as  well  as  the  more  learned,  to 
place  the  Happy  Legion  among  the  pious  fictions  of  former  ages.  A  defence 
of  the  Happy  Legion  was  at  once  contemplated  by  Claret,  the  Abbot  of  St. 
Maurice,  in  the  Valais,  to  whom,  more  than  to  any  other,  the  task  appeared  to 
belong ;  but  being  burdened  with  too  much  business,  he  devolved  the  task 
upon  his  friend  Joseph  de  VIsle,  Abbot  of  St.  Leopold,  at  Nancy ;  and  he,  after 
a  long  interval  of  thirty-five  years,  came  out  against  the  opposers  of  the  holy 
soldiers,  in  a  French  work,  printed  at  Nancy  in  1741,  r2mo.  entitled,  "Defense 
de  la  verite  de  la  Legion  Thebeenne  pour  repondrc  a  la  Dissertation  du  Minis- 
tre  du  Bordieu."  This  writer,  deficient  neither  in  learning  nor  ingenuity,  pours 
upon  his  antagonist  a  great  abundance  of  testimonies  and  documents,  among 
which  are  some  of  sufliciently  high  antiquity,  and  now  first  adduced  by  him  ;  but 
in  replying  to  the  arguments  of  his  opponent,  and  pnrticularly  to  those  brought 
against  the  Acta  Sti  Mauritii,  attributed  to  Eucherius,  his  strength  fails  him, 
and  he  hardly  maintains  his  ground:  neither  does  he  meet  the  whole  contro- 
versy, for  he  was  ignorant  of  the  arguments  which  Hottinger  had  added  to  those 
of  the  first  assailant.  Yet  the  erudite  man  fully  satisfied  his  own  church,  and 
especially  those  members  of  it  who  live  sumptuously  and  merrily  at  the  ex- 


First  Acts  of  Diocletian.  100 

pcnse  of  St.  Maurice  and  liia  companions,  that  is,  on  the  resources  of  tho 
Happy  Legion,  contributed  and  consecrated  by  well-meaning  people  ;  but  tho 
nnnds  of  those  whom  Dubordieu  and  JloUin'^er  led  astray,  he  could  not  con- 
vince and  reclaim.  After  some  years,  Dubordieu  \)c\\\<r  dead,  tho  aLtiick  was 
renewed  by  one  of  the  prefects  of  the  Genevan  library,  Boulnirc,  [p.  5G7.] 
if  I  remember  correctly,  a  man  of  uncommon  sagncity  and  industry;  nay,  he 
fortified  the  att;ick  by  new  arguments,  in  a  French  Epistle,  which  is  inserted 
in  the  Bibliolheque  Raisonnee,  (torn,  xxxvi.  p.  427,  &,c.)  This  learned  man  de- 
serves special  praise,  not  only  for  ingenuously  admitting  that  Dubordieu,  whom 
he  patronizes,  had  committed  some  mistakes,  but  also  for  laboring  to  ascertain 
the  origin  of  the  fiible,  and  to  show  that  it  was  brought  from  the  East  into 
Rhetia.  A  little  afterwards,  a  rather  brief,  but  ingenious  and  well-digested 
opinion  on  the  subject,  was  given  by  the  very  respectable  Loysius  Buchat,  in  \m 
Mcmoires  Critiques  sur  I'Histoire  ancienne  de  la  Suisse,  (vol.  i.  p.  557,  &c., 
edit,  of  1747.)  He  had  no  doubt  that  every  intelligent  person  who  shall  feel 
himself  at  liberty  to  express  his  real  sentiments,  after  examining  the  whole  sub- 
ject, will  place  the  history  we  are  considering  among  the  pious  frauds. 

Whoever  compares  with  a  calm  and  unbiassed  mind  the  arguments  on  both 
sides,  will  readily  adopt  the  opinion,  that  this  controversy  is  not  yet  decided  ; 
the  learned  men  already  mentioned  have  indeed  rendered  the  story  of  the  The- 
btean  Legion  dubiou?,  and  some  parts  of  it  they  have  divested  of  all  proba- 
bility, but  they  have  not  overthrown  the  whole  story.  For,  as  already  observ- 
ed, the  advocates  of  the  Blessed  Legion  bring  forward  a  mass  of  testimonies, 
some  of  which  have  great  antiquity;  and  although  the  other  party  oppose  to 
these  testimonies  the  silence  of  the  cotcmporary  writers,  and  those  of  the  age 
next  after  the  legion,  and  also  arguments  derived  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
yet  all  this  proof  seems  insufficient  to  wholly  overthrow  the  evidence  of  so  many 
proofs  from  both  facts  and  testimony.  Whoever  shall  carefully  and  accurately 
weigh  all  the  arguments,  however,  will,  I  think,  conclude,  that  the  side  of  the 
opposers  has  the  advantage  over  that  of  the  defendants.  The  most  ancient 
witness  for  the  legion  lived  in  the  Jiflk  century,  and  wrote  the  Life  of  Roma- 
nus,  Abbot  of  Mount  Jura,  in  Burgundia,  who  died  after  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century.  This  Life  is  in  the  Ada  Sanclor.  Antwerp,  (torn.  iii.  Fcbruar.  ad  diem 
28,  p.  740,)  and  w\as  undoubtedly  composed  soon  after  the  death  of  Romanus 
by  one  of  his  associates.  From  this  author  we  learn,  that  in  the  time  of  Ro- 
manus, and  consequently  about  the  middle  of  the  Jiflh  century,  there  was  at 
Agaunum  a  church  dedicated  to  Maurice,  the  commander  of  the  legion ;  and 
that  his  whole  history  was  then  inserted  in  the  Acta,  and  was  considered  alto- 
gether true.  For  thus  he  writes  (c.  iv.  }  15,  p.  744)  :  Basilicam  Sanctorum, 
immo,  ut  ita  dixerim,  castra  Martyrum  in  Agaunensium  locum,  sicut  passionis 
ipsorum  relatio  digesta  testatur,  qua3  sex  millia  sexcentos  viros,  non  dicam  am- 
bire  corpore  in  fabricis,  sed  nee  ipso  (ut  reor)  campo  illic  potuit  consepire, 
fidei  ardore  deliberavit  (Romanus)  expetere.  And  in  his  preflice  (p.  741,)  he  ex- 
plicitly mentions  Maurice,  the  commander  of  the  legion,  and  not  obscurely  tells 
us.  that  his  urn,  i.  e.,  his  sepulchre,  was  to  be  seen  in  the  church  of  Agauinim  : 
Prior  (Romanus)  priscum  sccutus  Johannem  supra  urnam  S.  Mauritii,  id  est 


110  Century  III— Section  22. 

[p.  6G8.]  Legionis  Thebaeorum  martyrum  cnpul,  velut  ille  eximius  Apostolua 
Kupni  siilutifuri  pectus  rceumbit  auctoris.  This  church,  havhig  fallen  by  its 
age  or  otherwise,  near  the  close  of  the  century,  needed  to  be  rebuilt.  Accord- 
ingly, it  was  rebuilt,  and  Alcimus  Aviliis,  archbishop  of  Vienne,  preached  a 
sermon  in  the  new  built  church  near  the  commencement  of  the  sixlh  century. 
The  sermon  is  lost,  or  at  least  has  not  been  discovered  ;  but  Sirmo?id  found 
the  beginning  of  it  in  an  ancient  manuscript,  with  the  following  inscription : 
Dicta  in  Basilica  sanctorum  Agaunensium,  in  innovatione  monasterii  ipsius 
vel  pubsione  martyrum.  Although  the  exordium  thus  recovered  is  short,  yet 
it  places  beyond  dispute,  that  some  Acta  Legionis  Thehaecc  then  existed,  that 
they  agreed  withthose  we  now  have,  and  were  publicly  read  in  the  presence  of 
the  assembly  immediately  before  this  discourse.  The  Acta  now  extant  are 
attributed  to  Eiicherius,  bishop  of  Lyons,  in  the  sixth  century,  a  man  of  re- 
spectability on  many  accounts;  and  therefore  they  hold  the  third  i)lace  in  the 
list  of  documents  on  which  rests  the  credibility  of  this  story.  The  documents 
of  the  sixth  and  following  centuries,  being  much  inferior  to  those  of  the  first 
class  above  mentioned,  I  pass  them  without  notice. — It  is  therefore  clear,  unless 
I  wholly  misjudge,  that  as  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  Jifih  century,  and  per- 
haps also  in  the  fourth,  the  inhabitants  of  Rha^tia  and  the  Valais,  firmly  be- 
lieved what  is  at  this  day  stated  respecting  the  Thebaean  Legion  ;  they  possessed 
and  read  the  Ada  of  this  legion;  dedicated  a  church  to  it,  and  in  that  church 
annually  celebrated  the  memory  of  those  illustrious  soldiers ;  they  preserved 
the  bones  of  Maurice,  the  commander  of  the  legion;  and  they  pointed  out  the 
plain  where  the  slaughter  of  it  took  place  by  command  of  Maximian  Hercu- 
lius.  h  remains  then  to  be  inquired,  whether  these  arguments  are  sufficient  to 
place  the  truth  of  the  story  beyond  all  controversy.  This  the  very  learned  op- 
posers  deny ;  and  on  what  grounds  I  will  now  shew,  with  the  same  impar- 
tiality with  which  I  have  stated  the  arguments  in  favor  of  the  story. 

First,  Many,  and  especially  Duhordieii,  in  opposing  the  Actafelicis  Legionis 
which  have  come  down  to  us,  deny  that  these  Acta  were  written  by  Eucherius; 
they  contend  that  they  contain  various  errors ;  and  they  would  attribute  the 
compilation  of  them  to  some  ignorant  monk  of  the  seventh  century.  But  if  wc 
admit  that  these  objections  are  urged  with  as  much  truth  as  erudition  and  inge- 
nuity, yet,  unless  I  greatly  mistake,  they  avail  nothing  against  the  truth  of  our 
historical  facts.  For  these  fiicts  do  not  rest  solely  on  the  authority  of  those 
Acta,  but,  as  we  have  shown,  upon  stronger  and  more  ancient  testimonies,  which 
cannot  in  any  way  be  confuted.  Let  us  suppose  that  these  Acta  were  com- 
piled in  the  seventh  century,  or  even  in  the  eighth  or  ninth,  and  by  some  igno- 
rant and  fraudulent  person;  it  would  still  be  certain,  that  as  early  as  the  ffih 
century  there  were  other  Acta  in  the  hands  of  the  Rhaetians,  which,  in  regard 
to  the  main  facts,  agreed  with  these. 

Secondlij.  Much  stronger  is  the  argument  derived  from  the  silence  of  tho 
writers,  who  lived  at  and  near  the  time  when  the  legion  is  said  to  have  been 
butchered.  Eusebius,  the  father  of  ecclesiastical  history,  and  otherwise  a  care- 
ful recorder  of  the  sufferings  of  the  martyrs,  knew  nothing  respecting  this 
[p.  669.]  legion.     Sulpicius  SeveruSy  of  the  Ji/th  century,  who  lived  in  Gaul, 


First  Acts  of  Diocletian,  \\\ 

and  wrote  a  (Ilisloria  Sacra,)  Ili.-tory  of  Religion,  knew  notiiinfr  of  lliia 
legion;  Paul  Orosius,  who  commented  on  the  expedition  of  Maxiinian  into 
Gaul,  knew  notJiing  of  it;  Lacianiius,  who,  in  \m  book  De  Mortihus  Perse- 
quulorum,  describes  the  cruelty  and  the  tnigical  death  of  Maximian,  knew 
nothing  of  it;  Frude7iUus,ii  distinguished  Christian  poet,  who  sung  the  praises 
of  the  known  martyrs  of  his  times,  knew  nothing  of  it.  In  short,  all  the 
writers  of  the  fourth  century  whose  works  li.ive  come  down  to  us,  knew 
nothing  respecting  this  legion.  The  weight  of  this  negative  argument,  which 
surely  is  great,  was  felt  by  Joseph  de  I'lsle;  who,  of  course,  does  all  he  can 
to  evade  it.  But  fairness  requires  us  freely  to  admit,  that,  while  it  is  impossi- 
blc  wholly  to  destroy  it,  it  may  be  in  a  measure  weakened.  In  the  first  place, 
the  advocates  for  the  legion  say,  it  is  not  strange  that  an  occurrence  i:i  Eu- 
rope, and  in  the  valleys  of  the  Alps,  should  have  been  unknown  to  EusebiuSf 
and  to  all  the  Asiatic  and  African  writers;  nor  can  it  be  denied,  that  EvscMus 
is  silent  as  to  many  occurrences  in  the  West,  and  that  his  history,  for  the  most 
part,  treats  of  the  affairs  of  the  East.  With  regard  to  Siilpitius  Seierus,  there 
is  greater  difficulty ;  because  he  lived  in  Gaul,  where  this  legion  is  reported 
to  have  been  butchered  ;  and,  as  he  was  of  a  light  and  credulous  disposition,  he 
would  undoubtedly  have  mentioned  it  in  his  history,  if  there  had  been  a 
popular  rumor  spreading  throughout  Gaul,  in  his  age,  of  the  glorious  death  of 
so  many  soldiers.  But  I  am  suspicious,  that  Sulpitius  himself  affords  a  plausible 
answer.  After  briefly  but  nervously  speaking  of  the  grievousness  and  severity 
of  the  Diocletian  persecution,  in  the  following  terms :  Hac  tempestate  omnia 
fere  sacro  martyrum  cruore  orbis  infectus  est.  -  -  Nullis  umquam  mngis  bellis 
mundus  exhaustus  est;  he  proceeds  to  say  explicitly,  that  for  the  sake  of 
brevity,  he  should  not  particularly  mention  any  of  the  martyrs,  although  iheir 
Acta  were  extant:  Extant  etiam  mandatce  litteris  praidaraj  ejus  temporis  mar- 
tyrum passiones :  quas  connectendas  non  putavi,  ne  modum  operis  excederem. 
(See  his  Historia  Sacra,  L.  ii.  c.  32,  p.  248.)  Here,  it  appears  to  me,  he  clearly 
explains  the  reason  of  his  silence.  Paul  Orosius  and  Prudentius  lived  in  Spain ; 
and  therefore  it  might  be  that  they  were  ignorant  of  an  occurrence  on  the  bor- 
ders of  Italy.  Orosius,  moreover,  (Hist.  L.  vii.  c.  25,)  treats  very  summarily  of 
the  affairs  of  Diocletian  and  Maximian,  and  of  the  persecution  of  Chrisfians  by 
them;  so  that  he  could  not  well  repeat  so  long  a  story  as  that  of  the  Thebaian 
Legion  ;  and,  like  Sulpitius,  he  mentions  no  particular  martyr.  But  in  regard 
to  Lactaniius,  whom  I  asssume  to  be  the  author  of  the  celebrated  treatise  de 
Mortihus  PersequutoTum,  the  most  ingenious  apologist  will  find  himself  stag- 
gered. For  he  might  well  know  the  story,  since  his  book  shows,  that  he  waa 
not  only  familiar  with  all  the  occurrences  in  the  empire  and  the  imperial  court 
in  those  times,  but  also  with  the  vices  and  crimes  and  flagitious  deeds  of  Max- 
imian ;  nor  can  any  reason  whatever  be  assigned,  why  he  should  omit  an  oc- 
currence so  intimately  connected  with  the  subject  of  which  he  was  [p.  570.] 
treating,  and  yet  describe  very  copiously  the  hostility  of  Maximian  towards  the 
Christians,  and  the  many  sufferings  they  endured  at  his  hands. 

Thirdly.  Another  argument  against  the  legion  is  drawn  by  learned  men 
from  the  story  itself,  which,  they  say,  contains  many  things  utterly  incredible. 


112  Ccnlvry  III.— Section  22. 

They  contend,  first,  that  it  is  incredible  there  should  be  in  the  Roman  arm)',  at 
that  time,  a  whole  legion  made  up  of  Cliristians ;  and  it  is  still  more  incredible 
that  Maximian,  when  marching  against  enemies,  and  just  ready  to  meet  them, 
should  slaughter  so  great  a  portion  of  his  army,  recently  summoned  from  the 
East  to  ensure  his  success,  and  should  thus  willingly  weaken  his  forces,  and 
deprive  himself  of  the  means  necessary  to  a  victory;  for,  however  savage  his 
disposition,  he  was  most  skilful  in  military  affairs,  and  a  consummate  general. 
Again,  they  contend,  that  it  seems  by  no  means  probable,  that  among  so  many 
soldiers,  not  one  was  disposed  to  consult  his  safety,  either  by  dissimulation  or 
by  flight.  And,  finally,  they  say  it  was  strai>ge,  and  a  thing  unheard  of,  for  so 
great  a  body  of  armed  men  patiently  to  resign  themselves  up  to  their  execu- 
tioners, and  make  no  effort  to  defend  their  lives  with  their  arms.  All  these  con- 
siderations are  urged  with  much  ingenuity  and  address  by  very  learned  men; 
and  yet  it  must  be  admitted,  that  if  the  story  of  the  Thebccan  Legion  can  be 
proved  by  irresistible  testimony,  then  it  has  nothing  to  fear  from  these  argu- 
ments; for  none  of  ihera  are  so  strong  as  to  be  wholly  unanswerable. 

For  myself,  next  to  the  silence  of  Lactantius,  I  regard  as  the  strong- 
est of  all  arguments  against  the  story  of  this  legion,  w'hat  the  above-men- 
tioned prefect  of  the  Genevan  library  states  to  us,  from  Ca3sar  Barronius, 
(Adnot,  ad  diem  22,  Septcmbr.  Martyrologii  Romani,  p.  375.)  respecting  a  Mmi- 
rice  among  the  Greeks,  very  similar  to  the  Gallic  commander  of  the  Thebaian 
Legion.  For  the  Greeks  very  devoutly  observe  the  twenty-first  day  of  Feb- 
ruary, in  memory  of  a  certain  Maurice,  a  military  tribune,  whom  the  emperor 
Maximian  commanded  to  be  put  to  death  on  account  of  his  Christian  faith,  at 
Apamea,  in  Syria,  and  with  him  seventy  Christian  soldiers.  The  Acta  of  this 
Maurice  are  given  by  the  Jesuits  of  Antwerp,  (Acta  Sanctor.  tom.  iii.  Feb- 
ruarii,  p.  237,)  and  are  undoubtedly  of  modern  date,  and  of  no  historical  value. 
Yet  this  Maurice  was  held  by  the  Greeks  of  the  Jiflh  century  to  be  a  martyr 
of  the  highest  order ;  as  is  attested  by  Theodoret,  (Graecar.  Affectionum 
L.  viii.  p.  607.)  Now,  it  is  contrary  to  all  probability  that  there  were  two 
Maurices,  both  tribunes,  and  both  put  to  death  by  the  same  emperor;  the  one 
in  Syria  and  the  other  in  Gaul,  and  at  about  the  same  time,  and  each  with  the 
soldiers  under  him.  And.  therefore,  it  would  seem  that  the  story  of  Maurice 
and  his  companions  must  have  been  borrowed,  either  by  the  Latins  from  the 
Greeks,  or  by  the  Greeks  from  the  Latins.  But  Tkeodoret,  above  cited,  affords 
objections  to  our  supposing  the  Greeks  received  the  story  from  the  Latins ; 
and  therefore  it  is  most  probable  that  the  Latins  transferred  the  Maurice  of  the 
Greeks  from  Syria  to  Gaul,  and  augmented  and  embellished  his  history  with 
many  fables,  invented  doubtless  for  the  sake  of  gain.  Yet  T  will  not  strongly 
object  if  some  should  conjecture,  perhaps,  that  something  actually  occurred 
[p.  57L]  in  the  Valais,  or  near  the  Leman  Lake,  which  afforded  occasion  for 
the  perpetration  of  this  fraud,  by  some  priest  desirous  to  procure  sustenance  and 
wealth  from  the  credulity  of  the  people.  Perhaps  Maximian,  while  marching 
his  army  into  Gaul,  actually  ordered  a  few  of  his  soldiers,  who  refused  to  sacri- 
fice to  the  gods  for  the  success  of  the  war,  to  suffer  the  penalty  of  their  con- 
Btancy.     Perhaps,  soon  afterwards,  a  little  chapel  was  erected  in  memory  of 


First  Acts  of  Diocletian.  113 

(hoso  holy  soldiers,  on  the  spot  where  they  were  shiin  ;  for  such  was  the  oua- 
torn  of  (hat  aye.  But  as  that  little  chapel  had  not  sufficient  fame  and  cele- 
brity to  render  it  very  lucrative  to  its  g'uardians,  they,  in  order  to  allure  people 
thither,  and  thus  enrich  their  domicile,  expanded  the  brief  Jiistory  of  its  iuinible 
origiu,  and  summoning  to  their  aid  the  Maurice  of  the  Greeks  and  his  military 
companions,  they  represented  Maximian  as  slaughtering  a  whole  legion  in  the 
Vahiis.  And  the  multitude  of  human  bones  \\\  those  parts  afforded  support  to 
the  fable.  For,  those  finiiliar  with  ancient  history  know,  that  great  battles 
were  formerly  fought  in  that  part  of  Gaul,  and  many  thousand  persons  slain  ; 
so  that  the  ground,  where  now  is  seen  the  splendid  and  prosperous  monastery 
of  {St.  Maurice^  was  formerly  rich  in  dead  corpses. 

(2)  This  is  attested  by  Eusehhis,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  viii.  c.  1,  p.  292,  c.  4, 
p.  295;  and  in  the  end  of  the  book,  p.  317.)     So  learned  men  long  since  ob- 
served; nor  can  there  be  any  doubt  of  it.     But  as  to  tlie  author  of  this  first 
persecution  of  the  soldiers  and  officials  of  the  palace,  some  doubts  have  arisen 
in  my  mind,  while  comparing  Eusehius  with  Lacianlius ;  which,  I  am  surprised, 
have  not  occurred  to  the  learned.    Eusehius  clearly  represents,  that  before  Dio- 
cletian had  made  any  decrees  against  the  Christians,  Maximian  Galerius  perse- 
cuted the  soldiers  and  servants  of  the  palace.     But  Lactantius,  (de  Mortibus 
persequutor.  c.  10,  p.  85,  die.)  although  he  inveighs  vehemently  against  the 
cruelty  of  Ma.ximian  in  other  instances,  and  charges  him  with  extraordinary  zeal 
for   exterminating  the  Christians,  yet  is  entirely  silent   as  to  this  crime  of 
Maximian ;  and  he  tells  us,  on  the  contrary,  that  Diocletian  first  assiiiled  the 
soldiers  and  officials  of  the  palace,  but  without  shedding  blood.     He  represents 
Diocletian  as  being  then  in  the  East,  and  as  searching  in  the  livers  of  beasts 
which  he  had  slain,  to  obtain  auguries  of  future  events.    But  some  of  his  minis- 
ters who  were  standing  by,  being  Christians,  made  the  sign  of  the  cross  on 
their  foreheads:  quo  facto^  fugaiis  dccmonibus,  sacra  iurhata  sunt.     The  sooth- 
sayers repeated  their  sacrifices  several  times,  but  in  vain  ;  they  could  not  di-co- 
ver  the  customary  appearances  on  the  entrails  of  the  victims.     At  length  the 
chief  soothsayer  declared,  non  respondere  sacra,  quod  rchus  die inis  pro/an i  homi- 
nes (namely,  Christians)  interesseni.   Then  Diocletian,  in  a  rage,  ordered  all  the 
persons  in   the   palace  to  offi?r  sacrifices,  and    such  as   refused  were  to  be 
scourged.     And  by  letters  addressed  to  their  commanders,  milites  ad  nefanda 
sacrijicia  cogi  prcccepily  ut  qui  non  paruisscnf,  militia  soharentur.     He  adds : 
Haclenus  furor  ejus  et  ira  processit,  nee  amplius  quidquam  contra  legem  [p.  572.] 
aut  religionem  Dei  fecit.     Neither  was  he  afterwards  disposed  to  go  farther. 
For  when,  after  some  years,  Maximian  wished  to  have  public  edicts  of  a  bloody 
character  enacted  against  the  Christians,  he  refused,  and  said  :  Satis  esse,  si 
palatinos  tanlum  et  milites  ah  ea  religione  prohiberet.  (c.  11,  p.  99,  ed.  Bauldrian.) 
Whether,  theretbre,  this  first  liglit  and  moderate  persecution  of  soldiers  and  offi- 
cials, which  preceded  the  great  Diocletian  persecution  that  commenced  in  the 
third  year  of  the  following  century,  is  to  be  attributed  to  Diocletian  or  Maxi- 
mian, appears  to  be  uncertain,  because  of  the  disagreement  of  the  principal 
authorities  on  the  subject.    Those  who  would  reconcile  these  disagreeing  state- 
ments, may  say  that  both  emperors  committed  the  same  fault,  and  assailed 

VOL.  u.  9 

I 


114  Century  III— Section  22. 

their  soldiers  and  palace  servants  at  the  same  time  ;  Diocletian  in  the  East,  and 
Maximian  in  Illyricum,  which  was  the  province  under  his  jurisdiction.  And 
there  is,  I  confess,  a  shade  of  difference  between  tiie  military  persecution  descri- 
bed by  Eusebiiis,  and  that  which  is  mentioned  by  Laclantius,  which  might 
seem  to  make  them  distinct  from  each  other.  Laclanlrus  says,  that  Diocletian 
punished  no  one  capitally  ;  but  Eusebius  represents  some  as  being  put  to  death 
by  Maximian.  In  Hict,  I  do  not  look  upon  tliis  conjecture  with  contempt.  Yet, 
not  to  dwell  on  the  improbability  that  the  two  emperors,  when  fur  separated 
from  each  other,  should,  at  the  same  time,  commit  the  same  outrage ;  what 
could  have  induced  Lactantius  to  state  the  crime  of  Diocletian,  and  to  omit 
tlie  similar  crime  of  Maximian,  on  whom  he  at  other  times  charges  all  the  evils 
brouglit  by  Diocletian  on  the  Christians  1  If  you  say  he  was  ignorant  of  the  fact ; 
I  answer,  first,  this  is  altogether  incredible :  and,  secondly,  I  ask,  how  could 
Eusebius,  a  man  not  less  well  informed  respecting  the  events  of  those  times,  than 
was  the  author  of  the  treatise  de  Moriibus  Persequutorum,  and  who  represents 
the  first  outrage  as  that  of  Maximian, — how  could  he  be  ignorant  that  Dio- 
cletian committed  the  same  outrage  ? — Another  method  of  removing  the  diffi- 
culty seems  to  be  intimated  by  Lactantius  himself,  in  his  Institutiones  Divincc, 
(L.  iv.  e.  27,  p.  546,  ed.  Biinemann.)  In  treating  of  the  interruption  of  the  sa- 
cred rites  of  the  haruspices  by  the  Christians  crossing  their  foreheads,  he  speaks 
as  if  not  Diocletian  solely,  but  also  Maximian,  were  offering  those  sacrifices  j 
for  he  speaks  of  (Domini)  lords,  in  the  plural,  as  being  present :  Quum  enim 
quidam  ministrorum  e  cultoribus  Dei  sacrificantibus  Dominis  assisterent,  impo- 
sito  frontibus  signo,  deos  illorum  fugaverunt.  And,  a  little  after :  Aruspiees 
adegerunt  Princifcs  suos  in  furorem,  ut  expugnarent  Dei  templum.  Now  if, 
as  these  words  seem  to  imply,  Diocletian  and  Maximian  were  together,  and 
both  united  in  the  sacrifices,  then  neither  Lactantius  nor  Eusebius  is  wholly 
wrong ;  but  each  has  erred,  by  attributing  an  act  of  the  two  emperors  to  only 
one  or  the  other  of  them.  But  from  adopting  this  opinion,  we  are  withheld 
by  Lactantius  himself,  (de  Mortibus  Persequutor.  c.  10,  near  tlie  end.)  where 
[p.  673.]  he  not  obscurely  shows,  that  the  emperors  were  in  different  places  at 
the  time  when  Diocletian  was  enraged  at  the  Christians  for  interrupting  his  re- 
ligious rites.  And  why,  I  ask,  if  Maximian  was  then  with  Diocletian,  does  he 
not  mention  his  name,  since  he  wished  to  make  his  villanies  as  notorious 
as  possible  ?  Besides,  every  body  knows,  the  plural  number  is  often  used  in- 
stead of  the  singular,  especially  by  those  who,  like  Lactantius,  speak  or  write 
in  a  rhetorical  manner.  In  short,  that  the  great  persecution  which  the  Chris- 
tians suffered  under  Diocletian  in  the  subsequent  century,  commenced  with  thia 
Blight  preclude  at  the  close  of  this  century,  and  was  hurtful  only  to  the  soldiers 
and  the  residents  in  the  palace,  can  admit  of  no  question  ;  but  against  the  sup- 
pf)sition  of  a  twofold  prelude,  the  one  in  the  East  and  the  other  in  the  West, 
botn  Eusebius  and  Lactantius  stand  equally  opposed,  for  each  of  them  mentions 
but  one ;  and,  whether  Diocletian  or  Maximian  commenced  the  tragedy, 
remains  in  uncertainty. — I  will  subjoin  a  few  remarks  on  the  motive  wliich,  ac- 
cording to  Lactantius,  induced  Diocletian  to  maltreat  the  Christian  soldiers  and 
officials  of  the  palace.    I  cannot  doubt  that  something  of  the  kind  narrated  did 


Church   Government,  115 

occur-  but  that  the  Christians,  by  cro9sin<T  their  foreheads,  put  demons  to 
fljirht,  and  disturbed  the  emperor's  divination,  I  cannot  easily  believe.  Tho 
soothsaying  art,  we  know,  was  a  deception,  invented  to  impose  on  the  common 
people;  and  this  was  well  understood  by  the  wiser  among  the  Romans,  as  ap- 
pears from  Cicero's  second  Book  de  Divinatione.  We  therefore  suppose  that 
the  crafty  soothsayers,  who  were  watching  for  an  opportunity  to  bring  down 
great  evil  upon  the  Christians,  pretended  that  they  could  not  sacrifice  succesa- 
fully,  on  account  of  the  presence  of  Christians,  aiming  to  exasperate  the  feel- 
ings of  the  superstitious  emperor;  and  the  design  succeeded.  But  the  Chris- 
tians, who  supposed  that  the  evil  spirit  enacted  all  the  frauds  of  the  priests, 
had  a  belief  in  divination ;  which,  however,  they  could  not  have  had,  if  they 
had  consulted  their  reason. 

(3)  Respecting  the  prosperous  state  of  the  Christians,  before  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Diocletian  persecution  in  the  year  303,  Eusebius  treats  at 
some  length,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  viii.  p.  291.)  He  says,  the  emperors  showed 
great  kindness  to  the  Christians ;  committed  the  government  of  provinces  to 
some  of  them ;  allowed  their  domestics,  with  tlieir  children  and  servants,  full 
liberty  to  profess  the  Christian  religion ;  and  even  seemed  to  have  peculiar 
affection  for  their  Christian  attendants  and  servants.  The  governors  of  pro- 
vinces also,  and  the  magistrates,  paid  great  respect  to  the  bishops.  And  hence, 
the  Christian  community  daily  received  much  enlargement,  and  churches  were 
built  in  the  several  cities :  neither  could  the  calumnies  and  artifices  of  the  ill- 
disposed  disturb  their  tranquillity.  But  at  the  same  time  Eusebius  freely  ac- 
knowledges, with  grief,  that  the  Christians  in  the  enjoyment  of  liberty  fell  into 
licentiousness  and  great  vices ;  they  had  internal  broils  and  contests,  congre- 
gation with  congregation,  and  prelates  with  prelates ;  frauds  and  dissimulation 
also,  reached  a  very  high  pitch  ;  neither  did  thnt  moderate  chastisement  [p.  574.] 
of  the  soldiers  correct  these  vices ;  but  rather  the  Christians  waxed  worse  and 
worse:  the  pastors  disregarded  the  rules  of  religion  in  their  mutual  contests, 
affected  the  despotism  of  princes,  and  did  various  things  unbecoming  their  cha- 
racter. These  facts  should  be  borne  in  mind,  if  we  would  justly  appreciate 
the  causes  of  the  violent  persecution  soon  after,  under  Diocletian.  For  the 
Christians,  by  their  imprudent  conduct,  put  weapons  into  the  hands  of  their  ad- 
versaries. For  who  can  doubt,  that  the  friends  of  the  gods  took  occasion,, 
from  the  vices  and  the  broils  of  the  Christians,  to  instil  into  the  emperors,  that 
the  interests  of  the  republic  required  the  utter  extirpation  of  so  turbulent  a 
sect ;  a  sect  that  would  not  be  quiet,  but,  abusing  its  prosperity,  produced  so 
great  commotions  in  the  state  ? 

§  XXIII.    Constitution    and   Government  of  the   Church.     The 

form  or  Constitution  of  tlie  Christian  church,  which  had  been 
introduced  in  the  preceding  century,  not  only  continued,  for 
the  most  part,  to  exist  in  this  century,  but  became  confirmed 
and  strengthened.  Over  the  individual  congregations  of  the 
larger  cities,  one  person  presided,  with  dignity  and  authority, 


116  Century  Ill.^Scction  23. 

entitled  tlic  Bkliop ;  but  lie  Avas  allowed  to  decide  notliing  in 
private  matters,  without  taking  counsel  witli  tlie  Preshyters ;  and 
notliing  in  public  matters  pertaining  to  tlic  whole  church,  with- 
out assembling  and  consulting  the  people.(')  All  Bishops^  as  Avell 
as  all  Preshyters,  were  perfectly  equal  in  rank  and  authority ;  yet, 
for  keeping  up  the  consociation  of  the  churches,  the  Bishop  who 
governed  the  congregation  in  the  principal  city  of  a  province,  was 
entitled  to  some  precedence  and  honor  above  the  others.  And 
the  necessity  for  this  regulation  became  greater,  as  councils  Avere 
more  frequently  called  together  throughout  the  Christian  com- 
monwealth, in  Avliich  the  representatives  of  the  churches  delibe- 
rated and  established  rules  for  the  common  Avelfare  of  the  wdiole 
province,  or  of  several  provinces.  The  cause  Avhieh  led  one 
Bishop  in  a  provmce  to  have  a  sort  of  preeminence  over  the 
rest,  also  procured  a  primacy  and  some  anthority  for  the  Bishops 
of  the  primary  cities  hi  Asia,  Africa,  and  Euroj^e ;  among  wdiom, 
unquestionably,  the  first  place  was  assigned  to  the  Bishop  of 
the  city  of  Eome.  But  as  for  any  common  judge  of  the  whole 
church,  or  a  Bishop  of  Bishops,  performing  the  functions  of  a 
vicegerent  of  Christ,  those  times  knew  nothing  of  it.(")  To  the 
Deacons^  in  the  larger  and  more  opulent  churches,  there  Avere 
[p.  575.]  added  functionaries  of  loAv^er  rank,  Suhdeacons^  AcolytJdstSj 
Jcmitors,  Lectors^  and  Exorcists  ;  in  consequence,  as  I  apprehend^ 
of  the  fastidiousness  and  pride  of  the  Deacons^  Avho,  finding  them- 
selves in  gTcater  affluence,  Avere  uiiAvilling  to  discharge  the  hum- 
ble offices  Avhich  they  had  previously  never  declined. (') 

(1)  Respecting  the  authority  and  rights  of  presbijlers  in  tliis  century,  dccla- 
ations  of  the  ancients  have  been  collected  in  abundance,  by  David  Blondell,  in 
his  Apologia  pro  senlentia  Hieronymi  de  episcopis  cl  presbijieris,  (p.  136,  &c.) 
and  many  more,  by  Claud.  Fonteius,  (the  assumed  name  of  u  celebrated  theo- 
logian of  the  Pnrisian  school,  James  Boilean,)  in  his  treatise,  (k  antiquo  jure 
freshyterorum  in  regimine  ecdesiaslico,  (Taurini,  1676, 12mo.)  But  there  is  one 
witness  who  may  be  ii  substitute  for  all,  namely  Cyprian,  one  of  the  most 
strenuous  vindicators  of  the  high  rank  and  authority  of  bishops.  Although  he 
lays  claim  to  the  highest  distinction  and  prerogative,  especially  when  heated  by 
conflict  with  those  who  resist  Jiis  pleasure,  yet  he  freely  acknowledges  in  many 
passages  of  his  Epistles,  that  he  could  decide  no  great  question  without  con- 
sulting the  clergy  and  presbyters.  And  although  he  sometimes  acts  inconsis- 
tently with  his  principles,  and  disregards  the  rights  and  prerogatives  of  tho 
people,  yet  when  properly  mast^jr  of  himeGjf,  and  more  obedient  to  the  law  of 


Church   Government.  117 

right  than  to  self-will,  ho  doe3  not  fail  to  show,  that,  in  the  government  of  tlio 
church,  and  in  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  by  no  means  the  least  part  belongs  to 
the  common  people.  To  save  the  render  from  the  trouble  ot  searching  them 
out,  I  will  cite  some  passages  to  this  purpose,  so  that  my  assertions  may  not 
appear  unsupported.  To  his  presbytera  and  Deacons  he  thus  writes,  (Ep.  v. 
p.  11  ;  al.  Ep.  .\iv.  c.  4) :  Ad  id  vero,  quod  scripserunt  milii  compresbyteri  nos- 
tri  Donatus  et  Fortunatus,  Novatus  et  Gordius,  solus  rcscriberc  nihil  potuiy 
quando  a  primordio  episcopatus  mei  stalnerini  nihil  sine  consilio  vestrOj  (i.  e.,  of 
ihe  presbyters  and  deacons,)  el  sine  consensu  plebis  mea  privalim  senteniia  ge- 
rcre.  Sed  cum  ad  vos  per  Dei  gratiam  venero,  tunc  de  iis,  quse  vel  gesta  sunt 
vel  gcrenda,  sicut  honor  muluus  poscit,  in  commune  traclabimus.  Here  Cyprian 
expresses  himself  with  precision ;  for  he  says  he  oitghi,  in  the  more  important 
cases,  to  ask  the  (consiliiun)  advice  of  the  presbyters  and  deacons;  but  that 
only  the  (consensus)  consent  of  the  people  was  requisite.  The  bishop,  there- 
fore, deliberated  on  business  matters  with  the  presbyters,  and  not  with  the 
people  ;  and  the  course  which  he  and  the  clergy  deemed  suitable,  was  proposed 
to  the  people  assembled  for  the  purpose,  and  they  either  approved  or  rejected 
it.  For  the  common  people  could  either  sanction  or  annul ;  they  were  not 
obliged  to  ratify,  whatever  the  bishop  and  his  counsellors  had  decided  upon. 
A  similar  passage  occurs  in  Epistle  xiii.  (p.  23,  al.  Ep.  xix.  ad  Presbyteros  et 
Diaconos,  e.  2.)  Hoc  et  verecundios  et  discipUncc  et  vitae  ipsi  omnium  nostrum 
co?nenil,  id  Prccpositi  cum  clero  convenienles,  pncsente  etiam  stantium  plehe^ 
quibus  et  ipsis  pro  fide  et  timore  suo  honor  habendus  est,  disponere  omnia  consilii 
communis  religione  possimus.  Being  requested  by  the  presbyters  and  [p.  576.] 
deacons  to  decide  the  case  of  two  deacons  and  an  acolythist,  who,  having 
h\psed,  again  returned  to  the  church,  he  replies  most  explicitly,  (Ep.  xxviii.  p. 
39 ;  al.  Ep.  xxxiv.  ad  presbyt.  et  Diaconos,  c.  4)  :  Desiderastis  quoque,  ut  de  Phi- 
lumeno  et  Fortunate  hypodiaconis  et  Favorino  Acolylho,  qui  medio  tempore 
recesserunt,  et  nunc  venerunt,  quid  milii  videatur,  rescribam.  Cui  rei  non 
potui  ms  solum  judicsm  dare,  cum  muUi  adhuc  de  clero  absentes  sint,  nee  locum 
8uum  vel  sero  repetendum  putaverunt,  et  hccc  singulorum  iractanda  sit  et 
limanda  plenius  ratio,  non  tantum  cum  colkgis  meis,  sed  et  cum  plebe  ipsa  uni- 
versa.  When  he  had  created  a  lector  and  a  subdeacon,  without  consulting  the 
presbyters,  he  excuses  the  deed  to  his  clergy  on  the  ground  of  necessity,  (Ep. 
xxiv.  p.  33 ;  al  Ep.  xxix.  ad  Presbyt.  et  Diacon.) ;  Fecisse  me  autem  sciatis  lec- 
torem  Saturum  et  hypodiaconum  Optatum  eonfcssorem,  quos  Jam  pridem  corn- 
muni  consilio  clero  proximos  feceramus.  -  -  Nihil  ergo  a  me  absentibus  vobis  no- 
vum factum  est;  sed  quod  jam  pridem  communi  consilio  omnium  nostrum 
cccperal,  necessitate  urgente,  promotum  est.  Cyprian  then,  by  his  own  confession, 
would  have  done  something  {novum)  new,  and  contrary  to  former  usage,  if  he 
had  constituted  even  the  lowest  officials  of  the  church,  lectors  and  subdeacons, 
without  consul  ling  the  presbyters.  There  are  examples,  I  am  aware,  of  Cy- 
prian's creating  presbyters  and  lectors,  without  the  consent  of  the  clergy  and 
people  ;  e.  g.  Numidicus,  whom  he  created  a  presbyter,  (Ep.  xxxv.  p.  48  ;  al. 
Ep.  xl.)  and  Celerinus  and  Aiireliiis,  and  perhaps  others,  whom  ho  made  lec- 
tors with  the  concurrence  of  only  a  few  of  the  clergy,  (Ep.  xxxiii.  et  xxxiv. 


118  Century  III— Section  2Z. 

p.  46,  &c. ;  al.  Ep.  xxxviii.  et  xxxix.)  But  all  these  were  Confessors,  and  had 
given  proofs  of  their  constancy  and  fortitude.  And  Confessors  enjoyed  tliis 
prerogative  in  the  ancient  church,  that  they  seemed  to  be  elected  and  desig- 
nated for  the  sacred  office,  as  it  were,  by  God  himself;  and  therefore  they 
might  be  received  into  the  sacred  order,  by  the  bishop  alone,  without  the  suf- 
frages of  the  clergy  and  the  people.  And  so,  in  this  act,  the  ancient  usages 
were  not  violated,  but  rather  followed  out.  The  correctness  of  these  state- 
ments will  be  seen  by  such  as  read  those  Epistles  of  Cyprian  to  his  presbyters 
and  people,  in  which  he  relates  the  admission  of  these  men  to  offices,  or,  in  the 
phraseology  of  Terlullian,  their  (CoUeclio  in  Clerum)  enrollment  among  the 
•  clergy.  Tiie  Epistle  which  relates  to  Aurelius,  (E])ist.  xxxiii.  al.  xxxviii.  ad 
clerum  et  ad  plebem,)  commences  thus:  Cyprianus  presbyteris  et  diaconis  et 
iplebi  univeri^a3  salutem!  In  ordinationibus  clerlcorum,  fratres  carissimi,  sole- 
mus  vos  ante  consulere  et  mores  et  merita  singulorum  communi  consilio  pon- 
derare.  (Here  we  have  the  common  and  ordinary  usage ;  the  extraordinary 
usage,  or  the  prerogative,  so  to  speak,  of  Confessors,  next  follows.)  Sed  ex- 
pectanda  non  sunt  iesiimonia  liumana,  cum  prccaedunt  divina  suffragia  ;  that  is, 
the  suffrages  of  the  clergy  and  people  are  not  necessary  in  the. case  of 
Confessors,  whom  God  has  declared  worthy  of  the  sacred  office,  by  the  grace 
[p.  577.]  which  he  has  given  them.  And  yet  Cyprian  had  not  acted  alone  in 
this  case,  but  in  conjunction  with  some  presbyters ;  for  he  adds,  (ibid,  c.  2)  : 
Hunc  igitur,  fratres  dilectissimi,  a  me  et  a  coUegis,  qui  prccsentes  aderani,  ordina- 
tum  sciatis.  In  like  manner  he  speaks  of  Celerinus  the  lector,  (Epist.  xxxiv. 
p.  47  ;  al.  Ep.  xxxix,  c.  1) :  Ego  et  coUegcc  mei,  qui  prccsentes  aderant,  referrimus 
ad  vos,  Celerinum  fratrem  nostrum  virtutibus,  pariter  et  moribus  gloriosura 
clero  nostro,  non  humana  sujfragatwne,  (i.  e.  not  by  the  suffrages  of  the  clergy 
and  people,)  sed  divina  dignaiiune  (which  God  manifested,  by  giving  him  forti- 
tude under  tortures,)  conjunctum.  After  a  sentence  or  two,  Cyprian  adds: 
iN'ec  fas  fuerat,  nee  decebat  sine  honore  ecclesiastico  esse,  quern  sic  Doininus  ho- 
noravil  ccelestis  gloria  dignitale.  Those  unacquainted  with  ancient  customs  and 
opinions,  may  not  know  the  meaning  of  this  last  citation  ;  and  the  annotators  on 
Cyprian  pass  it  over,  as  they  do  many  things  which  need  to  be  explained  by 
reference  to  ancient  usages.  I  will  therefore  explain  how  God  ccelestis  gloriae 
dignitale  lionoraxerit  Celerinum,  an  illustrious  Confessor,  who  for  nineteen  days 
had  been  under  torture,  and  bore  in  his  body  many  scars  of  his  wounds.  The 
souls  of  Martyrs  and  Confessors,  on  leaving  the  body,  were  supposed  to  ascend 
immediately  to  glory,  but  not  so  the  souls  of  other  Christians,  which  had  to 
await  the  final  advent  of  the  Judge,  in  a  certain  intermediate  state.  See,  among 
others,  TertuUian,  (de  Aniraa,  c.  55,  p.  353,  &:c,)  where  he  says  :  Nullis  romphcca 
paradisi  janatrix  cedit,nisi  qui  in  Christo  decesserit  (the  Martyrs,)  non  in  Adam  ? 
Nova  mors  pro  Deo,  el  extraordinaria  pro  Christo,  alio  et  privato  exeipitur  hos- 
pitio.  Ilabes  etiam  de  paradise  a  nobis  libellum,  quo  constituimus,  omnem  ani- 
mam  (leaving  the  body  by  a  natural  death,)  apud  inferos  (in  an  intermediate 
place,)  sequestrari  in  diem  Domini.  He  therefore  who,  by  God's  assistance,  had 
been  superior  to  tortures,  obtained  a  title  to  celestial  glory,  and  he  was  by  God 
publicly  honored  with  that  distinction.     Cyprian  then  means  to  say :  That  to  the 


Church   Government.  119 

man  whom  God  li.is  declared  an  heir  of  celestial  glory,  and  to  whom  he  his  as- 
signed a  place  among  the  glorified  souls  immediately  after  death,  ought  to  bo 
assigned  a  place  among  the  leaders  and  ministers  of  the  church  militant. — The. 
same  account  is  given  by  Cyprian^  in  the  case  of  Numidicus,  a  distinguished 
Confessor,  whom  he  had  received  among  the  presbyters,  without  the  consent 
of  the  clergy  and  people,  (Ep.  xxxv.  p.  49;  al.  Ep.  xl.) :  Nam  admonitos  nos  et 
instructos  sciatis,  dignadone.  duincL,  (this  is  explained  above,)  ut  Numidicus 
presbyter  ad-^cribaturpresbyterorum  Carthaginensium  numero  et  nobiscum  se- 
deat  in  clero,  luce  clarissima  confessionis  illustris.  We  here  learn  the  ground 
of  tiie  custom,  in  the  ancient  church,  of  receiving  into  the  sacred  order  Confes- 
sors, though  unlearned  and  not  duly  qualified.  They  reasoned  thus:  Confes- 
sors, by  the  resolution  and  firmness  of  their  minds  in  confronting  tortures  and 
death,  have  obtained  througli  grace  a  title  to  celestial  felicity,  which  [p.  578.] 
other  Christians  have  not ;  it  is  therefore  right  and  proper,  that  those  to  whom 
God  has  vouchsafed  so  great  honor,  should  also  be  honored  by  the  church,  and 
be  elevated  above  other  Christians.  Neither  is  it  necessary  that  the  clergy 
and  people  should,  as  in  other  cases,  approve  of  their  admission  to  the  rank  of 
fathers  of  the  church.  The  divine  suftrage  is  sufficient;  and  the  bishop,  on 
ascertaining  that  fact,  may  proceed,  without  a  consultation  with  the  clergy  and 
people,  to  admit  them  to  the  sacred  order. 

But  we  return  from  a  digression.  There  is  no  passage  in  Cyprian  which 
more  clearly  demonstrates,  that  the  clergy  and  the  people  shared  with  the  bishop 
the  power  of  governing  the  church,  than  one  in  his  27th  Epistle,  (p.  37,  38 ; 
al.  Epist.  xxxiii.  c.  1.)  ;  and  I  wonder  tliat  it  should  escape  the  attention  of  the 
learned,  who  have  treated  of  this  subject.  The  Epistle  commences  thus:  Do- 
minus  noster,  cujus  praeccpta  et  monita  observare  debemus,  episcopi  honorem 
et  ecclesiae  sua3  rationcm  disponens  in  evangelio  loquitur  et  dicit  Petro  :  Ego  tibi 
dico,  quia  tu  es  Petrus,  et  super  istara  petram  aedificubo  ecclesiam  nieam,  et 

portse  inferorum  non  vincent  earn,  &;e, Inde  per  temporum  et  succes- 

sionum  vices  episcoporum  ordinatio  et  ecclesise  ratio  decurrit,  ut  ecclesia  super 
episcopos  constUuatur,  et  omnis  actus  ecclesicc  per  eosdem  prccpositos  gubernetur. 
Cum  hoc  itaque  divina  lege  fundatum  sit,  miror,  quosdam  audaci  temeritate  sic 
mihi  scribere  voluisse,  ut  ecclesiaj  nomine  litteras  facerent,  quando  ecclesia 
in  episcopo  et  clero  et  in  omnibus  stantibus  sit  constituta.  The  reasoning  of 
Cyprian  in  this  passage  deserves  contempt ;  for  no  one  can  suppose,  with  him, 
that  the  words  of  Christ  to  Peter  here  cited,  define  the  rights  of  the  church 
and  of  the  bishops.  The  doctrines,  however,  which  he  professes,  deserve  re- 
gard; for.  First,  he  most  explicitly  declares  the  church  to  be  super  episcopos 
constitutam,  or,  to  be  superior  to  the  bishops ;  from  which  it  follows,  that  su- 
preme power  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  is  vested  in  the  church ;  and  that  the 
bishop,  without  the  church,  can  decide  and  determine  nothing.  Secondly,  he 
tells  us  what  he  would  have  us  understand  by  the  word  church;  and  affirms 
that  to  the  church  belong,  not  merely  the  clergy,  but  also  omnes  stanles,  that  is, 
the  whole  multitude  of  persons  who  have  not,  by  any  of  the  greater  sins,  nor 
by  defection  from  Christianity,  merited  exclusion  from  the  number  of  the  bre- 
thren, and   therefore   continue   stedfast  in   the  faitii.      Thirdly,  he  teaches  that 


120  Century  III.— Section  23. 

actum  omnem  eccJesicc  guhernari  ah  episcopo,  or  that  the  biohop  presides  in  the 
meetings  of  the  church,  states  the  subjects  to  be  discussed,  and  collects  the  suf- 
frag-es  or  opinions  given.  More  tli.in  tliis  cannot  be  here  intended,  by  the 
word  guhcrnari,  because  he  had  declared  the  church  to  be  tlie  greater  and  supe- 
rior to  the  bishop.  For  the  church  would  be  the  lesser  and  inferior  to  the  bishop, 
if  guhernare  here  meant  to  prescribe  the  decisions  and  demand  an  approbation 
of  the  bi;<hop's  own  personal  judgment.  The  church  must  nccess-arily  be  free  to 
[p.  579.]  act  its  own  pleasure,  if  it  be  true,  that  it  has  more  power  and  authority 
than  the  bishop.  LaslJy,  he  decides  that  all  these  are  the  precepts  of  Christ, 
or  divina  lege  fundata :  with  what  truth  lie  could  so  affirm  need  not  be 
inquired ;  it  is  sufficient  that  he  thought  it  to  be  so.  From  this  language  there- 
fore the  learned  men  may  correct  their  views,  who  attempt  to  persuade  us  that 
Cyprian,  whenever  he  calls  the  clergy  and  people  to  his  aid,  and  associates  him- 
self with  them,  does  so,  not  in  obedience  to  law  and  right,  but  only  from  mo- 
desty and  a  regard  for  prudence.  He  himself  denies  the  truth  of  this  opinion, 
and  bids  us  believe,  that  the  bishop  who  shall  decide  any  matter  of  much  im- 
portance without  consultln_g-  the  clergy  and  people,  will  violate  a  mandate  and 
law  of  our  Savior. 

(2)  So  numerous  and  strong  are  the  testimonies  to  the  liberty  and  equality 
of  the  Christian  churches  in  this  century,  adduced  long  since  by  learned  men, 
in  the  great  controversy  respecting  the  primacy  of  the  Roman  bishop,  that  it 
would  seem  the  persons  who  maintain  that  one  church  had  power  and  a  sort 
of  jurisdiction  over  the  rest,  must  be  chargeable  with  a  greater  devotion  to 
their  sect  and  to  their  early  imbibed  opinions,  than  to  the  truth.  Those  who 
contend  that  in  this  century,  as  well  as  in  subsequent  times,  all  the  European 
churches  were  subject  to  the  bishop  of  Rome,  think  they  find  great  support  for 
their  opinion  in  the  writings  of  Cyprian ;  which  may  seem  very  strange  to  the 
impartial  judges  of  the  subject,  who  know,  that  from  this  same  writer  the  de- 
fenders of  the  opposite  opinion  derive  their  principal  arguments  in  support  of 
the  opinion  that  the  church,  in  this  century,  recognized  no  visible  head  or  su- 
preme bishop.  One  of  two  things  must  be  true  ;  either  one  or  the  other  of 
the  contending  parties  must  have  misinterpreted  Cyprian,  or  Cyprian  is  not  con- 
sistent w-ith  him.self,  and  had  very  obscure  and  indeterminate  ideas  respecting 
the  nature  of  the  church.  I  will  exhibit  the  arguments  on  both  sides,  and  then 
give  my  own  judgment  in  the  matter.  First:  The  still  extant  Epistles  of 
Cyprian  to  Cornelius,  Lucius,  and  Stephen,  bishops  of  Rome,  and  also  some 
Epistles  of  Cornelius  to  Cyprian,  are  written  in  a  manner  that  makes  it  evident 
that  no  one  of  them  even  thought  of  any  difft-rence  as  to  jurisdiction,  rank, 
and  station  among  them.  In  that  age,  as  well  as  in  this,  when  inferiors  wrote 
to  their  superiors,  or  superiors  to  their  inferiors,  they  distinguished  themselves 
from  the  persons  they  addressed,  by  certain  titles  and  modes  of  expression; 
although  the  propensity  for  adulation  and  for  arrogance  had  not  then  reached 
the  height  to  which  it  subsequently  arose.  But  nothing  of  this  kind  can  yon 
discover  in  the  Epistles  I  have  mentioned.  Cyprian  addresses  the  Romish 
bishops  in  the  same  style  as  he  addresses  other  bishops,  and  calls  them  simply 
(JraLres  et  coUegas)  Brothers  and  Colleagues ;  and  Cornelius  addresses  Cyprian 


Church    Government.  121 

in  the  same  style,  and  drops  not  n,  syllable  which  can  be  eoiisidcrtd  as  indic:u 
live  of  any  jurisdiction  or  authority.  Indeed,  Cyprian  ia  himself  the  most 
assuming,  and  not  only  reproves  Stephen  severely  for  claiming  some  dignity 
and  power,  but  also  most  freely  censures  Cornelius,  when  he  thought  hini 
in  error,  and  recalls  him  to  his  duty.  I  well  recollect,  that  Peter  de  Marca,  (do 
concordi:;  sacerdotii  et  imperii,  L.  vii.  e.  1,  p.  988,)  as  well  as  many  [p.  58U.J 
others,  attempts  to  prove  from  Cyprian's  Epistle  to  Stephen,  concerning  Marrian, 
bishop  of  Aries,  (Epist.  Ixvii.  p.  115;  al.  Ep.  Ixviii.  c.  2,)  that  Cyprian  acknow- 
ledged the  primacy  of  Stephen  in  the  church ;  for,  in  this  Epistle,  Cyprian 
exhorts  Stephen  "  to  write  in  the  fullest  manner  to  the  bishops  of  both  Gauls, 
that  they  should  no  longer  suffer  Marcian,  the  friend  of  Novatian,  to  insult  the  col- 
lege of  bishops :"  from  which  the  great  de  Marca  infers,  that  Stephen  had  some 
jurisdiction  over  the  bishops  in  Gaul.  But  Stephen  Baluze,  (in  his  notes  on 
the  passage,  p.  488,)  is  more  cautious,  and  concludes  that  Cyprian  well  knew 
"  that  the  defence  of  the  canons  was  committed  to  the  bishop  of  Rome ;"  that  is, 
this  learned  man  interprets  the  passage  according  to  the  views  of  the  Gallican 
church.  But  I  will  leave  it  to  all  impartial  persons  to  judge  whether  there  ia 
any  force  in  such  reasoning  as  this:  Cyprian  admonishes  Stephen  to  write  to 
the  bishops  of  Gaul  about  excluding  Marcian;  therefore  Cyprian  believed  that 
Stephen  had  some  jurisdiction  over  the  Gallic  bishops.  Who  does  not  know, 
that  even  we  ourselves  are  accustomed  every  day  to  exhort  those  over  whom 
we  have  no  kind  of  authority  or  power? 

Secondly :  Cyprian's  contest  with  the  Roman  bishop  Stephen,  respecting 
the  baptisms  of  heretics,  which  we  have  stated  above,  has  vast  weight,  in  proof 
that  nobody,  in  that  age,  ascribed  to  the  Romish  prelate  the  honor  of  being  su- 
preme judge  in  all  religious  controversies.  Indeed,  those  on  the  opposite  side 
cannot  deny  this;  and  therefore  they  resort  to  every  expedient  to  cast  this 
great  contest  into  the  shade.  Cyprian,  having  assembled  several  bishops,  de- 
cided with  them,  that  all  heretics  coming  over  to  the  church,  ought  to  be  again 
baptized ;  and  this  decision  of  his  council  he  transcribed  and  sent  to  the  Ro- 
man Stephen,  not  on  account  of  any  official  relation  to  him,  or  any  law  re- 
quiring it,  but  solely  as  a  matter  of  courtesy.  He  says  (Epist.  Ixxii.  p.  129, 
c.  4,)  :  Haec  ad  conscientiam  tuam,  frater  carissinie,  et  pro  honore  communi  et 
pro  simplici  dilectione  pertulimus.  Stephen  disapproved  this  decision,  and  an- 
swered Cyprian  haughtily  :  the  latter,  despising  his  menaces,  held  firmly  to  the 
decision,  and,  assembfing  a  still  larger  council,  fortified  it  with  new  and  stronger 
supports.  Stephen,  thus  situated,  did  not,  as  is  commonly  stated,  cast  Cyprian 
out  of  the  church,  but  only  declared  him  unworthy  of  his  communion.  Cyprian 
contemned  this  ebullition  of  wrath ;  and  the  other  bishops  felt  very  indignant 
at  it.  These  were  most  certainly  the  facts ;  and  who  that  reads  or  hears  them, 
can  bring  himself  to  believe  that  the  Roman  pontiff  or  bishop  then  possessed 
any  supreme  power  or  sovereignty  ?  Some  perhaps  will  say,  that  Cyprian  did 
wrong,  and  being  heated  by  passion,  overstepped  the  boundaries  of  respect  due 
to  the  Roman  bishop.  But  this  is  a  hasty  ajid  futile  objection.  For  if  Cypriar. 
had  done  any  thing  inconsistent  with  his  duty,  he  would  have  been  reproved 
ard  deserted  by  the  other  bishops.     They,  however,  did  not  think  that  Cyprian 


122  Century  III.— Section  23. 

had  done  wrong,  but  that  Stephen  was  in  fault.  And  this  seems  to  put  it  beyond 
.  [p.  581.]  all  controversy,  that  if  perhaps,  some  priority  in  lioncr,  yet  none  in 
power  or  jurisdiction  was  then  conceded  to  the  Romish  prelate. 

Thirdly:  The  writings  and  acts  of  Cyprian  while  this  contest  was  going 
on,  afford  also  very  clear  testimony  on  tliis  subject.  In  iiis  71st  Epistle,  (:id 
Quintam,  p.  127,  c.  3,)  he  denies  that  Peter  had  any  primacy  of  authority: 
Nam  nee  Petrua,  quern  primum  Doniinus  elegit,  et  super  quern  aedificavit  ec- 

clesiani  suam, vindicavit  sibi  aliquid  insolenter  aut  arroganter  assumsit,  ut 

diceret,  se  primatum  tenere,  et  obtemperari  a  novellis  et  pesteris  sibi  oportere. 
If  then,  according  to  Cyprian,  Peter  himself  held  no  primacy,  and  neither  could 
enact  any  inviolable  laws,  nor  wished  to  do  it,  how  could  he  ascribe  any  primacy 
to  Peter's  successor,  so  much  his  inferior?  In  his  73d  Epistle,  (p.  137,  c.  26, 
and  elsewhere,)  he  teaches,  that  all  bishops  are  independent,  and  subject  to  the 
power  of  no  one:  Unusquisiue  episcoporum.  quod  putat, facial,  habens  arbilrii 
sui  liberam  poteslalem.  How  very  different  is  this  declaration  from  the  opinion 
of  those  who  say,  all  bishops  ought  to  be  in  subjection  to  the  bishoi)  of  Rome? 
Still  more  clearly  and  fully  does  he  express  himself  in  his  Address  at  the 
opening  of  the  Concilium  Cathaginense  de  hasreticis  baptizandis,  (p.  329)  : 
Neque  enim  quisquam  nostrum  episcopum  se  esse  episcoporum  constituit,  aut 
tyrannico  terrore  ad  obsequendi  necessitatem  collegas  suos  adigit,  qiiando  ha- 
heat  omnis  episcopus  pro  licentia  liberlalis  et  poteslalis  sua;  arbilrium  proprium, 
tamque  judicari  ah  alio  non  possil,  quam  nee  ipse  potest  allerum  judicare.  Sed 
expectemus  univer  si  judicium  Domini  noslri  Jesu  Chrisli,  qui  unus  et  solus  habet 
potestatem  et  pra^ponendi  nos  in  ecclesia:  sucn  qubernatione  et  de  acta  noslri  judi- 
candi.     This  language  needs  no  interpreter. 

I  pass  over  other  passages  of  similar  import,  and  will  add  only  one  more, 
which  is  the  more  pertinent  and  forcible,  because  it  occurs  in  an  Epistle  to  the 
Roman  bishop  himself,  Cornelias,  (Epist.  Iv.  p.  86 ;  al.  Ep.  lix.  c.  20) :  Nam 
cum  statutum  sit  ab  omnibus  nobis,  et  a3quum  sit  pariter  ac  justum,  ut  uniuscu- 
jusque  caussa  illic  audiatur,  ubi  est  crimen  admissum,  et  singulis  pastoribus  por- 
iio  gregis  sit  adscripla,  quam  regat  unusquisque  et  gubernat,  ralionem  sui  actus 
Domino  redditurus,  oportet  utique  eos,  quibus  prsesumus,  non  circumcursare,  nee 
episcoporum  concordiam  cohccrentem  -  -  collidere,  sed  agere  illic  caussam  suam^ 
vbi  et  accusatores  habere  et  testes  sui  criminis  possini ;  nisi  si  panels  desperatis 
et  perditis  minor  videtur  esse  auctoritas  episcoporum  in  Africa  constitutorum, 
qui  jam  de  illis  judicaverunt.  Felicissimus  and  Fortunatus,  two  enemies  of 
Cyprian,  had  gone  to  Rome,  and  implored  the  aid  of  Cornelius.  Cyprian  felt 
greatly  troubled  at  this.  He  first  wrote  to  Cornelius,  reminding  him  that  it 
had  been  established  by  the  common  consent  of  all  the  bishops,  that  every  cri- 
minal should  be  tried  where  the  crime  had  been  committed.  Now,  from  this  it 
clearly  appears,  that  all  Christian  bishops  were  on  a  level  with  each  other,  or 
[p.  582.]  were  equals  as  to  power;  and  that  no  individual  among  them  held  the 
office  of  supreme  judge.  What  follows  will  make  this  still  more  evident.  For 
he  says  :  (ii.)  That  to  the  bishops  severally,  portions  of  the  flock  of  Christ  were 
committed,  to  be  governed  by  each  bishop  according  to  his  own  discretion  and 
judgment  only,   (iii.)  That  no  bishop  had  any  judge,  lord,  or  master,  who  could 


Church   Government.  123 

call  him  to  account  for  his  acts,  except  Jesus  Christ.  Therefore,  (iv.)  that  a 
sentence  passed  by  one  bishop,  cannot  in  any  way  be  corrected  or  chanjred  by 
the  others.  And  he  adds  (v.)  lastly,  that  the  aathority  of  the  African  bishops 
was  not  inferior  to  that  of  tiie  Roman  prelate;  and  that  those  who  would  ac- 
count them  inferior  to  him  (homines  esse  desperatos  el  perdiios)  were  men  of  a 
desperate  and  abandoned  character. 

But  to  these  testimonies,  so  clear  and  unequivocal,  the  friends  of  the  Ro. 
man  pontiff  oppose  others,  in  which  Cyprian  himself  seems  to  enervate  what 
he  had  so  often  said  respecting  the  equality  of  all  bishops,  and  to  attribute  to 
the  Romish  prelate  a  sort  of  sovereignty  and  superior  authority.     For  they  ob- 
serve, that  in   many  passages  Cyprian  adirms :  Jesum  Christum  ccclesiam  suam 
super  Peirum  originem  unilatis  et  rationis  fundasse.     1  will  cite  only  one  pas- 
sage of  this  kind,  which  occurs  in  Epistle  Ixxiii.  (p.  131,  c.  7):    Nam  Petrc 
primum  Dominus,  super  quem  aedificavit  ecclesiam,  et  unde  unitatis  originem 
instituit  et  ostendit,  potestatem  istam  dedit,  ut  id  solveretur  in  coelis,  quod  ille 
solvisset  in  terris.     Et  post  resurrectionem  quoque  ad  Apostolos  loquitur,  &c. 
— Again,  they  urge,  that   on  account  of  this  dignity  conferred  on  Peter  ]>/ 
Christ,  Cyprian  (Epist.  Iv.  p.  86;  al.  Ep.  lix.  c.  19,)  calls  the  Romish  church: 
Petri  calhedram  atque  ecclesiam  principalem,  unde  unilas  sacerdotalis  orta  est. — 
But  they  especially  urge  a  passage  from  his  treatise  de  Unilate  Ecdesicc,  (p.  195, 
&.C.,  c.  4.)     I  will  cite  the  pass;ige  as  it  stands  in  the  edition  of  Baluze;  but  it 
is  well  known  that  the  ancient  copies  disagree,  and  it  is  justly  suspected,  or  ni- 
ther  proved,  that  zeal  for  the  honor  of  the  Romish  church  has  induced  some 
learned  men  in  time  past  to  corrupt  and  enlarge  the  passage  to  suit  their  own 
views  and  desires.     Loquitur  Dominus  nd  Petrum  :  Ego  tibi  dico,  inquit,  quia 
tu  cs  Petrus,  et  super  hanc  petram   aedificabo  ecclesiam  meam.  -  -  Et  iterum 
eidem  post  resurrectionem  suamdicit:  Pasco  oves  meas.     Super  ilium  unum 
acdificat  ecclesiam   suam,  et  illi  pascendas   mandat  oves  suas.     Et  quamvis 
Apostolis    omnibus   post   resurrectionem   suam  parem  potestatem  tribuat,  et 
dicat :  Sicut  misit  me  Pater,  et  ego  mitto  vos,  accipite   Spiritura  sanctum  -  - 
tameu  ut  unitatem  manifestaret,  unitatis  ejusdem  originem  ab  uno  inci[)ientem 
sua  auctoritate  disposuit.     Hoc  erant  utique  et  ceteri  Apostoli,  quod  fait  Petrus, 
pari  consortia  pncditi  et  honoris  et  potestatis,  sed  exordium  ex  unitate  proficisci- 
tur,  et  primatus  Petro  datur,  ut  una  Christi  ecclesia  et  cathedra  una  monstre- 
tur.  -  -  Hanc  ecclesioe  unitatem  qui  non  tenet,  tenere  se  fidem  credit?    Qui  ec- 
clesiae  renititur  et  resistit,  qui  cathedram  Petri,  super  quem  fundata  [p.  583.] 
est  ecclesia,  deserit,  in  ecclesia  se  esse  confidit  1     From  these  extracts,  distin- 
guished men  think  it  can  be  proved,  that  Cyprian  regarded  the  Roman  bishop 
as  presiding  over  the  whole  church,  and  represented  him  to  be  its  common 
judge  and  legislator  ;  and  that  this  opinion  was  not  held  by  Cyprian  alone,  but  by 
that  age,  and  by  the  whole  church.    Those  who,  in  reply,  would  cut  the  matter 
short,  may  say:  First.,  that  Cyprian  here  states  his  own   private  opinion  ;  but 
that  there  is  no  evidence  to   show,  that  the  whole  church  thought  as  he  did. 
Others  indeed,  in   times  subsequent  to  Cyprian,  said   nearly  the  same  thing-; 
but  they  copied  from  him.     For  the  influence  of  this  bishop  and  martyr  ainono 
Christians  was  immense,  and  his  opinions  were  regarded  by  many  as  divine 


124  Century  IILSectloti  23. 

oracles.  Yet  Cyprian,  us  will  not  be  denied,  even  by  those  who  consider  hinn 
a  very  great  and  holy  man,  had  imbibed  many  futile,  vain  and  superstitious  nc» 
tions,  and  also  cherished  some  remarkable  errors;  and  hence  we  ought  to  en- 
quire, whether  his  opinion  accords  wi;h  the  truth,  or  whether  it  should  be 
placed  among  the  errors  which  he  indulged.  ]t'  this  dogma  of  his  is  to  be  es- 
timated by  the  arguments  and  proofs  which  he  adduces  to  support  it,  I  fear  it 
cannot  be  ranked  with  tliose  which  no  man  of  sound  mind  can  rtject. — • 
Secondly:  Let  it  be  considered,  that  Cyprian  nowhere  ascribes  i\\ixi  primacy  of 
which  he  speaks,  to  the  Romish  bishop,  but  to  the  Romish  church.  But  the  (ec- 
clesia)  church,  as  we  have  before  sliowii,  in  Cypriaji's  estimation,  was  above 
or  superior  to  the  bishop,  and  consisted  of  the  bishop  and  the  clergy,  and  the 
whole  multitude  of  the  (slanlium)  the  faithful,  united.  If  then  it  were  per- 
fectly certain,  as  some  learned  men  think  it  is,  that  Cyprian  attributed  to  the 
Romish  church  a  primacy  over  all  churches,  his  opinion  cannot  by  any  means  be 
transferred  to  the  Romish  bishop  or  pontiff;  for  his  opinion  will  be  precisely 
this:  The  entire  Christian  population  of  Rome,  together  with  their  clergy  and 
bisliop,  have  power  over  the  universal  church.  But  how  wide  is  this  from  the 
opinion  of  those  who  think  the  Romish  prehite  sustains  the  office  of  Christ's 
vicegerent ! 

But,  laying  aside  these  answers,  although  they  are  not  to  be  despised,  let  us 
come  to  close  combat.  The  passages  from  Cyprian,  cited  on  the  side  opposed 
to  the  Pontifical  claims,  beyond  all  controversy,  contain  these  principles:  All 
the  bishops  in  the  Christian  church,  have  equal  powers  and  prerogatives  ;  none 
of  them  is  under  any  other  lord  or  judge,  than  Jesus  Christ.  And,  the  African 
bishops  are  in  no  respect  inferior  to  the  bishop  of  Rome.  But  the  passnges 
cited  on  the  side  of  the  defenders  of  the  Pontiff,  contain,  according  to  their 
interpretation,  the  following  doctrine:  There  is  one  bishop  in  the  church,  who 
rules  over  all  the  rest,  namely,  the  bishop  of  Rome;  and,  therefore,  the  African 
bishops  are  inferior  to  the  bishop  of  Rome,  and  ought  to  yield  obedience  to  his 
commands  and  decrees.  These  two  opinions,  as  is  manifest,  contradict  each 
other.  And,  therefore,  one  of  two  things  must  be  true;  either  Cyprian  contra- 
[p.  684.]  diets  himself,  and  brings  forward  directly  opposite  opinions  ondiflerent 
occasions  ;  or  the  passages  on  one  of  the  sides  must  be  so  explained  and  under- 
stood, as  not  to  conflict,  but  to  harmonize,  with  those  on  the  other.  Now  let 
the  learned  men,  who  are  so  solicitous  about  the  dignity  of  the  Romish  church 
and  the  supreme  Pontitf,  choose  which  side  they  please  of  this  alternative.  If 
they  choose  the  first,  and  admit  that  Cuprian  has  advanced  contradictory  opin- 
ions, his  authority  is  gone,  and  nothing  can  be  proved  or  inferred  from  his 
declarations.  For  what  credit  or  authority  is  due  to  the  man,  who  talks  absurdly 
and  advocates  opinions  contradictory  to  each  other?  The  latter  part  of  the 
alternative  therefore  must  be  tried,  and  the  passages  of  one  sort  must  be  so 
explained  that  they  will  accord  or  harmonise  with  the  others.  Now,  by  universal 
consent,  it  is  an  established  rule,  tiiat  light  controls  and  illumines  darkness; 
that  is,  the  obscure  and  ambiguous  passages  of  a  book,  are  to  be  elucidated  and 
explnined  by  the  passages  which  are  ck-ar  and  perspicuous;  for  it  would  be 
preposterous  to  guage  and  measure  the  import  of  passages  in  which  there  was 


Church    Qovcrnmcnt.  J 25 

no  obscurity  or  amlig-nity,  by  other  passages  wliieli  are  enigmatical  and  ailmit 
of  many  explanations.  Now  if  this  rale  is  to  bo  applied  in  the  pre>;ent  ease, 
as  undoubtedly  it  should  be,  1  think  all  will  agree,  that  the  passages  of  Cyprian 
wjiieh  speak  of  the  unity  of  the  church,  its  being  founded  on  Peter,  and  tho 
primacy  of  the  Romish  see.  must  be  understood  and  explained  in  such  a  way 
as  not  to  conflict  with  the  passages  which  affirm  the  parity  and  independence 
of . •ill  bishops;  for  the  latter  passages  are  clear  and  perspicuous,  and  will  not 
admit  of  various  interpretations;  but  the  former,  relative  to  the  unity,  &c. 
though  of  frequent  occurrence,  are  not  perspicuous,  and  will  admit  of  diverse 
exphmalions.  According  to  the  rules  of  correct  reasoning,  then,  we  cannot 
suppose  that  Cyprian  ascribed  to  the  Romi>h  church  a  sort  of  primacy  of  pow- 
er, and  a  sort  of  chil  unily  of  the  universal  church,  a  unity  as  to  authority  and 
control,  like  that  in  states  or  republics,  which  arc  governed  by  the  will  of  one 
man.  For  such  a  primacy  and  such  a  unily  would  subvert  and  destroy  that 
independence  and  equality  of  all  the  bishops,  which  he  most  strenuously  main- 
tains. On  the  contrary,  in  our  judgment,  it  must  have  been,  that  the  holy  man 
revolved  in  his  mind  such  a  unUij  of  the  church,  as  would  accord  with  his  belief 
of  the  equal  rights  of  all  bishops;  and  such  a  primacy  of  the  Romish  church,  as 
would  comport  with  his  decision,  That  the  African  bishops  are  not  inferior  to 
the  bishops  of  Rome,  and  that  what  they  decree,  cannot  be  reversed  or  altered, 
either  by  the  Roman  bishop,  or  by  all  the  other  bishops  ;  which  decision  Cyprian 
states  in  almost  these  very  terms. 

If  any  one  should  here  ask  for  a  correct  explanation  of  this  primacy  and  this 
vnityaa  maintained  by  Cyprian,  I  will  readily  answer,  respecting  the  primacy. 
Among  all  the  Christian  churches,  Cyprian  assigned  the  first  place  to  the  Romish 
church ;  for  reasons,  indeed,  that  are  very  weak  and  futile,  yet  such  as  satisfied 
him.  Whether  this  was  his  private  opinion,  or  whether  he  expresses  the  gene- 
ral views  of  the  churi.'h,  is  another  question,  wdiich  I  shall  leave  untouched. 
And  yet  I  will  not  deny,  that  from  the  time  the  Christians  embraced  the  idea 
that  the  Christian  church  had  in  some  sort  the  form  of  a  body  politic,  the  com- 
mencement or  origin  of  the  combination  was  always  traced  to  the  [p.  585.] 
Romish  church.  But,  as  to  the  unity  which  Cyprian  attributed  to  the  church, 
and  which  he  says  originated  from  the  Romish  church,  it  is  not  so  easy  to  an- 
swer. And  I  suspect,  that  Cyprian  himself  would  have  felt  himself  embarrass- 
ed, if  he  had  been  called  upon  to  explain  the  nature  of  this  unity  in  clear  and 
definite  terms.  For,  on  this  subject,  which  he  represents  as  being  of  \c.Yf 
great  importance,  he  yet  speaks  so  vaguely  and  with  so  little  uniformity,  that 
we  can  readily  perceive,  he  had  no  very  distinct  conception  of  it  in  his  own 
mind.  Those  are  exceedingly  mlstikcn,  who  suppose  that  Cyprian,  Tcrtullian, 
and  the  other  Clirlstian  writers  of  that  age,  clearly  understood  whatever  they 
taught  and  inculcated  with  great  earnestness  :  so  far  from  it,  they  annex  dilTorcnt 
ideas  to  the  same  terms,  as  the  subject  and  convenience  seem  to  call  for  them  ; 
which  is  evidence,  that  their  minds  needed  light,  and  that  they  entertained  vague 
and  indeterminate  notions.  And  yet  this  unily  of  the  church,  which  Cyprian 
go  liighly  extols,  and  the  commencement  of  which  he  places  in  the  Roir.ish 
church,  may  be  elucidated,  in  some  sort,  provided  wc  may,  from  a  part  of  the 


126  Century  III.— Section  23. 

tmj'/y,  judge  of  the  wliole.  That  unity,  which  ought  to  prevail  in  the  universal 
church,  actually  existed,  and  ought  to  exist,  in  the  African  church,  over  which 
Cypri;in  presided;  as  he  tells  us  repeatedly,  and  it  cannot  be  questioned. 
Therefore,  from  the  xm'xly  in  tiie  African  church,  we  may  learn  what  kind  of 
unity  Cyprian  supposed  to  exist  in  the  universal  church.  Now  the  African 
bishops  were  upon  a  footing  of  perfect  equality,  as  to  power  and  jurisdiction: 
each  could  sanction  and  establish  what  he  deemed  salutary  and  proper  in  his 
own  church,  without  being  accountable  for  his  acts  to  any  one  save  Jesus 
Christ.  This  we  learn  from  the  lips  of  Cijprian  himself.  And  yet  there  was  a 
primacy  in  this  same  church,  composed  as  it  was  of  members  all  equal ;  and  that 
primacy  was  in  the  church  of  Carthage.  Moreover  this  primacy  was  necessary, 
because  unity  was  necessary  in  the  African  church.  As,  therefore,  the  sacerdo- 
tal unity  in  the  universal  church,  emanated  from  the  church  of  Rome,  so  in  the 
African,  it  originated  from  the  church  of  Carthage.  That  unity,  with  the  pri- 
macy  on  which  it  was  based,  was  no  obstacle  to  the  parity,  and  equality  in  pow- 
ers, of  the  bishops;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  equality  of  the  bishops  was  no 
obstruction  to  the  primacy  and  the  unity.  All  that  this  unity  required,  was,  that 
all  the  bishops  in  the  province  of  Africa,  should  concede  the  first  place  in  point 
of  rank,  to  the  bishop  of  Carthage :  that  on  subjects  of  graver  moment,  they 
should  communicate  with  him,  and  ask  his  opinion ;  but  that  they  should  follow 
that  opinion  was  not  necessary;  that  they  should  go  to  the  conventions  or 
councils  held  on  great  questions,  at  the  summons  of  the  primate;  and,  lastly? 
that  they  should  observe  and  follow  out  what  was  decided  upon  by  common 
consent  in  those  councils.  The  manner  of  proceeding  in  these  councils,  we 
learn  distinctly  from  the  Acta  magni  Concilii  Carlhaginensis  de  baptizandis 
haereticis,  in  the  Works  of  Cyprian,  p.  329.  The  primate,  or  head  of  the  unity^ 
stated  the  business  for  which  they  were  assembled,  and  gave  his  colleagues  the 
fullest  liberty  to  express  their  opinions.  His  own  opinion  was  given  last  of  all. 
If  they  disagreed,  and  the  subject  did  not  pertain  to  an  essential  point  of  reli- 
[p.  5S6.]  gion,  each  bishop  was  at  liberty  to  follow  his  ov/n  judgment;  as  the 
oration  of  Cyprian,  at  the  opening  of  that  council,  puts  beyond  all  controversy. 
Such  a  unity,  and  such  a  primacy  m  the  universal  church,  Cyprian  conceived  of: 
nor  could  he  have  conceived  of  any  other,  unless  we  would  make  the  holy  man 
to  be  totally  ignorant  of  his  own  sentiments  and  meaning.  That  is,  he  con- 
ceived that  all  bishops  ought  to  be  so  connected  with  the  Romish  church,  as  to 
concede  to  it  the  same  rank  which  Peter  had  among  the  Apostles,  namely,  the 
first  rank  ;  and  so  as  to  recur  to  it  in  doubtful  cases  of  great  moment,  reserving 
to  themselves,  however,  the  right  of  dissenting  from  its  judgment,  but  still  re- 
maining in  its  communion  if  practicable.  If  he  had  any  thing  more  than  this  in 
his  mind,  and  I  will  not  atfirm  positively  that  he  had  not,  yet  this,  at  least,  is 
evident,  beyond  all  question,  that  he  contemplated  nothing  of  such  a  nature  as 
would  invest  the  Romish  prelate  with  any  sovereignty  or  power  over  the 
whole  church. 

Into  this  my  opinion,  I  am  confident  all  those  will  come,  who  shall  atten- 
tively consider  what  Cyprian  has  said  respecting  the  unity  of  the  church,  and 
the  consequent  primacy  of  the  Romish  church.    The  whole  subject  may  be 


Church    Government.  127 

comprelicndf?d  in  the  following  propositions:  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  which  I 
leave  out  of  consideration.  (I)  Jesus  Christ  foundea  his  church  on  Peter. 
Yet  (II)  He  did  not  (rive  to  Peter  any  power  over  the  other  Apostles,  or  any 
Bovcreigjity  and  primacy  of  jurisdiction  over  them.  But  (III)  after  IJis  resur- 
rection, he  conferred  the  same  power  on  all  the  Apostles.  (IV,)  On  Peter, 
however,  he  conferred  this  power  first,  and  afterwards  on  the  Apostles  ;  in 
order  to  indicate  that,  uniLalis  originem  ah  uno  incipere  debere.  I  clioosc  to  use 
Cyp'ian's  words  rather  than  my  own:  for  I  must  confess,  I  am  unable  to  com- 
prehend perfectly  the  force  of  his  reasoning,  or  the  meaning  of  his  language. 
(V.)  Omnes  igilur  Aposloli,  says  Cyprian  himself,  id  eranl,  quod  Pelrus  fuil^ 
pari  consorlio  frccditi  et  honoris  et  poleslalis.  We  may  here  observe,  that  Cy- 
prian does  not  leave  to  Peter  even  a  primacy  of  honor  or  rank.  (VI)  At  quo- 
niam  exordium  ab  unilale  pro/iciscilu?;  ideo  j^rimalus  (but  of  what  sort  ?  Hav- 
ing very  clearly  divested  Peter  of  any  primacy  of  power  or  honor,  what  primacy 
could  he  leave  to  him  ?  If  a  man  is  not  superior  to  others  either  in  hoiwr  or  in 
power,  in  what  respects  can  he  be  superior  to  them  ?)  Peiro  datus  est,  ul  una 
Christi  ecclesia  et  cathedra  una  monstretur.  Let  others  explain  this  :  I  will  not 
attempt  it.  (VII)  The  Romish  bishop  represents  Peter ;  the  other  bishops 
represent  the  Apostles.  (VIII)  The  respect,  therefore,  which  the  other  Apos- 
tles pnid  to  Peter,  must  the  bishops  show  to  the  Romish  prelate.  (IX)  But 
Peter  was  not  superior  to  the  other  Apostles,  either  in  power  or  in  honor  : 
therefore,  also,  all  the  bishops,  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  are  not  infe- 
rior to  Peter's  successor,  neither  in  power  nor  in  honor.  (X)  Yet  as  Christ 
made  Peter  the  beginning  and  source  of  the  church's  unity,  therefore  the 
other  apostles,  although  perfectly  his  equals,  owed  him  some  honor  as  being 
the  source  of  the  church's  unity.  And  of  course,  the  same  thing  is  [p.  587.] 
incumbent  on  the  bishops,  towards  the  successor  of  Peter.  (XI)  Consequent- 
ly, the  Romish  church  is  the  principal  church,  and  from  it  flowed  the  sacerdotal 
unity,  namely,  through  Peter.  (XTI)  Therefore  whoever  separates  himself 
from  the  chair  of  Peter,  tears  himself  from  the  church,  which  is  one,  and  has 
the  source  of  its  unity  in  the  church  of  Rome.  Yet,  according  to  Cyprian's 
views,  those  do  not  forsake  the  chair  of  Peter,  who  reject  the  decisions  and  de- 
crees of  the  Ptomish  bishop,  and  think  differently  from  him  in  religious  mat- 
ters. For  he  himself  had  rejected  the  decision  of  Stephen  respecting  the  bap- 
tisms of  heretics;  and  had  rebuked,  not  only  Stephen,  but  also  Cornelius;  and 
yet  he  had  not  forsaken  the  chair  of  Peter,  but  remained  still  in  the  church's 
unity. — Those  who  are  able,  may  digest  and  comprehend  all  this  :  it  is  sutTi- 
cient  for  my  purpose,  that  Cyprian  has  so  stated,  and  nearly  the  whole  in  the 
very  words  now  given.  And  how  greatly  these  propositions  differ  from  the 
©pinion  of  those  writers,  who  would  make  the  Roman  bishop  the  judge  and 
legislator  of  the  universal  church,  must  be  obvious  to  every  one. 

(3)  Yet  I  will  not  contend,  if  any  persons  are  disposed  to  offer  a  more 
honorable  reason  for  the  creation  of  those  minor  officers,  and  should  say,  per- 
haps, that  they  were  devised,  in  order  that  the  candidates  for  holy  orders  might 
go  through  a  sort  of  preparation  and  trial  of  their  fitness  for  the  office  of  dea- 
cons.    To  the  office  of  a  deacon,  and  especially  in  the  African  church,  much 


128  Century  ITl—Scction  24. 

dignity  and  honor  were  nttuched  in  this  century.  It  might  therefore  be  thought 
hazardous,  to  receive  aspirants  to  tiiis  ofhce,  without  some  previous  trial  of 
tlieir  fitness. 

§  XXIV.  The  Preroa:atives  and  PoAvers  of  the  Bishops  much  enlarg- 
ed. Althougli  tlic  ancient  and  venerable  form  of  clmrcli  govern- 
ment wliicli  was  sanctioned  by  tlie  Apostles,  might  seem  in  gene- 
ral to  remain  iindisturbed,  yet  it  was  gradually  deflected  more 
and  more  from  the  ancient  model,  and,  in  the  larger  congregations 
especiall}^,  assumed  the  nature  of  a  monarchical  government. 
For,  as  is  common  in  human  affairs,  the  bishops,  who  presided 
over  the  congregations,  arrogated  to  themselves  much  more  dig- 
nity and  authority  than  they  had  before  possessed,  and  the  ancient 
rights,  not  only  of  the  people  but  also  of  the  presbyters,  they 
first  abridged,  and  then  wholly  subverted,  directing  all  the 
affairs  of  their  communities  according  to  their  own  pleasure. 
And,  lest  this  should  appear  to  be  done  rashly  and  wrong- 
full  v,  they  devised  and  set  forth  new  doctrines  respecting  the 
church  and  the  office  and  authority  of  bishops,  which  they  seem 
not  to  have  fully  understood  themselves.  In  this  business,  Cy- 
prian was  an  example  to  his  brethren  in  this  century ;  for,  being 
himself  a  bishop,  and,  as  cannot  be  denied,  of  an  aspiring  and 
ambitious  disposition,  he  contended  most  strenuously  for  the 
[p.  588.]  honor  and  the  power  of  bishops,  and,  lest  those  pre- 
rogatives, which  he  thought  belonged  to  them,  should  in  any 
measure  be  wrested  from  them,  he  labored  to  establish  them  on 
stable  and  immoveable  foundations.  And,  as  the  influence  of 
this  man,  both  while  he  lived  and  after  his  decease,  was  very  re- 
markable, and  such  that  he  might  almost  be  called  the  common 
master  and  guide,  his  inventions  for  establishing  the  dignity  and 
power  of  bishops,  without  any  difficultj^  spread  through  the 
church  universal,  and  were  received  with  implicit  faith. (') 

(1)  Having  some  knowledge  of  the  course  of  human  aflfliirs,  I  am  neither 
greatly  surprised,  nor  indignant,  when  I  see  the  progress  of  episcopal  power  and 
dignity  in  the  ancient  church,  and  contemplate  the  rights  of  the  people  first,  and 
then  those  of  the  presbyters,  gradually  extinguished.  This  might  very  easily  oc- 
cur: indeed,  would  almost  necessarily  occur.  As  men  are  naturally  fond  of  ruling, 
It  is  usua.  f:?r  tnose  of  eievated  positions  in  society  to  endeavor  to  enlarge  tho 
boundaries  of  their  authority  and  power  •  and  commonly  their  efforts  are  suc- 
cessful, and  are  aided  by  their  colleagues  or  by  combinations.     For  where 


Prtrogatives  of  Bishops.  I09 

power  or  authority  is  equally  distributed  aiiion^  niany,  disagreements  and  try- 
ing contests  of(en  arise,  which  it  is  hardly  possible  to  repress,  without  increas- 
in^  the  authority  and  prerogative  of  the  head  man  of  the  company.  To  thin 
cause  many  others  m:iy  be  added  ;  such  as  zeal  for  certiiin  objects,  ambition, 
poverty,  the  desire  of  wealth,  &:e,,  which  stimulate  the  governors  of  the  society, 
even  though  naturally  sluggish,  slow  in  movement,  and  unaspiring,  iiiid  Ihua 
elevate  them  and  place  them  on  a  higher  level.  And  those  who,  in  these  ways, 
whether  by  accident,  or  by  their  own  etforts,  or  by  the  folly  of  others,  obtain 
elevation,  are  very  apt  to  claim  the  standing  they  hold  as  justly  due  to  them  ; 
and  to  search  for  reasons  and  arguments  to  prove,  that  the  authority  they  pos- 
sess did  not  come  to  them  fortuitously  but  in  a  legitimate  manner.  And  hence 
arise  frequently  obscure,  futile,  perple.\ing  discussions,  which  yet  are  necessary 
for  those  that  would  defend  what  they  have  obtained.  To  apply  these  remarks 
to  Christian  affairs  and  the  gradually  increasing  power  of  the  bishops,  is  not 
necessary  ;  the  wise  will  readily  see,  that  the  same  thing  occurred  among  Chris- 
tians, which  is  common  in  all  human  affairs;  and  that  the  primitive  equality  of 
all,  and  the  joint  administration  of  sacred  things,  gradually  disappeared,  and 
the  rank  of  those  entrusted  with  the  chief  management  of  the  church's  affairs, 
was  of  course  amplified.  Councils  having  been  every  where  introduced  in  the 
preceding  century,  and  a  consociation  of  the  churches  in  each  province  being 
pstablished,  it  was  a  natural  consequence,  that  the  bishops,  who  alone  delibe- 
rated in  these  councils  on  all  great  questions,  and  framed  their  canons,  should 
appear  more  exalted  characters  than  formerly,  and  that  the  prerogatives,  not 
only  of  the  people,  but  also  of  the  clergy,  should  suffer  diminution.  Yet  a 
semblance,  and,  indeed,  not  merely  a  semblance,  but  a  real  part  of  the  ancient 
liberty,  and  of  the  common  participation  in  the  government,  remained  :  [p.  589.] 
nor  was  any  of  the  bishops  of  this  century  so  bereft  of  modesty,  as  to  dare 
maintain,  that  he  had  a  right  to  transact  any  great  business,  without  consulting 
the  clergy  and  the  people.  Strong  testimonies  to  this  point,  have  already  been 
adduced  from  Cyprian.  But  this  same  Cyprian,  who,  when  he  has  selfposses- 
eion  and  is  apprehensive  of  some  danger,  acknowledges  the  church  to  be  supe- 
rior to  the  bishop,  and  attributes  much  importance  to  the  clergy  and  the  peo- 
ple, at  other  times  so  exalts  the  authority  and  dignity  of  bishops,  as  to  subvert 
and  destroy  all  the  prerogatives  of  the  people  and  presbyters,  and  strenuously 
maintain  that  the  whole  government  of  the  church  belongs  to  the  bishop  alone. 
That  is,  this  man  of  unquestionable  excellence  and  worth,  but  too  fond  of  pow- 
er, follows  prudence  and  yields  to  circumstances,  when  he  admits  associates  in 
the  government  of  the  church,  but  speaks  out  the  sentiments  of  his  heart  when 
he  extols  bishops  and  makes  them  sovereigns  of  their  churches.  And  in  this 
direction  he  is  so  indulgent  to  his  natural  propensity,  that  no  one  before  him, 
not  even  IgnaliuSy  the  great  patron  of  episcopal  dignity,  has,  in  my  opinion, 
spoken  more  magnificently  of  the  sovereign  power  and  authority  of  bishops,  no 
one  has  exalted  their  authority  more  highly. 

In  \\\(i  first  place,  whenever  occasion  offers,  he  very  carefully  inculcates,  that 
the  bishops  do  not  obtain  their  office  by  the  suffrages  of  the  clergy  and  people, 
but  from  the  judgmeiit,  testimony  and  good  pleasure  of  God  himself     Ho 
VOL.   II.  10 


130  Century  ITI.—Secfton  24. 

Bays,  (Epist.  lii.  p.  68,  al.  Ep.  Iv.  c.  7.)  :  Facius  est  autem  Cornelius  episcopus 
de  Dei  et  Christi  ejus  jvdicio.  This  he  repeats  in  numerous  passages ;  and  it 
is  customary  language  with  him  :  Deus  sacerdotes  suosfacit.  (See  Epist  xlv. 
p.  59.,  lii.  p.  68,  69.,  Iv.  p.  82.,  Ixv.  p.  1 13.,  l.vi.x.  p.  121.)  I  will  cite  but  one  no- 
ttiLle  passage,  which  may  stand  for  them  all.  It  is  in  his  69Lh  epistle,  p.  121.  al. 
Ep.  Ixvi.  c.  1.,  where  he  says  to  Florentius,  one  of  his  adversaiius :  Aiiimadver- 
to,  id  post  Dexim  judiciem,  qui  sacerdotes  facit  velle,  non  dicam  de  me  (quantus 
enim  ego  sum?)  sed  de  Dei  et  Christi  judicio,(i\\h\ch  he  received,  according  to 
Cyprians  views,  when  he  was  constituted  a  h'lshop, judicai'e.  The  man  whom 
he  here  reproves,  had  doubted  whether  Cyprian  was  the  true  and  legitimate" 
bishop  of  Carthage.  Cyprian  replies,  that  this  is  sacrilege,  and  an  attack  upon 
God  himself  and  his  Son:  for  men  do  not  make  bishops,  but  God.  He  goes 
on  to  .say  :  Hoc  est  in  Dcum  non  credere,  hoc  est  rebellem  adversus  Christum 
et  adversus  evangelium  ejus  existere,  ut  tu  cxistimes,  sacerdotes  Dei  sine 
conscientia  ejus  in  ecclesia  ordinari.  How  explicit  1  how  positive!  Now  in 
tliis  declaration,  which  is  always  on  his  lips,  Deus  sacerdotes  suosfacit,  by  the 
words  sacerdotes,  he  means  the  bishops.  There  are  indeed  some  passages  of  hia 
writings,  in  which  he  honors  presbyters  with  the  appellation,  sacerdotes ;  and 
hence  some  learned  men,  Blondell,  Salmasius,  and  others,  have  hastily  con- 
cluded that  Cyprian  regarded  presbyters,  as  equal  in  official  power  and  autho- 
rity with  bishops.  But  whenever  he  asserts  that  God  creates  the  priests, 
[p.  690.]  he,  beyond  all  controversy,  uniformly  means  the  bishops ;  and  some- 
times he  employs  the  very  word  episcopus  instead  of  sacerdos.  Neither  did 
this  holy  man  suppose,  Wi^i presbyters  are  made  and  created  by  God:  this  glory 
he  ascribed  only  to  the  bishops. — How  Cyprian  understood  this  assertion,  of 
which  he  is  so  fond,  I  do  not  know  exactly :  for  lie  never  explains  it,  and 
always  uses  that  vague  method  of  stating  and  defending  his  opinions,  to  which  he 
had  been  accustomed  among  the  rhetoricians  when  he  was  hjmself  a  rhetorician, 
before  he  became  a  Christian ;  and,  therefore,  he  defines  nothing.  But  I  sup- 
pose him  to  mean,  that  whenever  an  assembly  was  collected  to  choose  a  new 
bishop,  God  so  illuminated  and  influenced  those  who  had  the  right  of  voting, 
that  they  could  not  create  or  nominate  any  other  than  the  person  to  whom  h« 
had  decreed  the  office.  If  this  was  not  his  meaning,  I  know  not  what  wa.s. 
That  he  could  not  intend  that  common  and  o-rdinary  law  of  divine  Providence, 
which  wisely  controls  all  human  affairs,  is  most  certain,  and  will  soon  bo 
shown.  But  his  opinion,  as  thus  explained,  is  attended  by  many  difficulties. 
For  men  were  often  created  bishops,  who  were  wholly  unworthy  and  unfit  for 
the  office ;  and  a  wise  man  can  never  think  that  these  persons  were  elected  by 
an  extraordinary  divine  impulse  or  influence.  Moreover,  as  is  well  known,  the 
votes  of  the  electors  were  often  divided,  so  that  they  could  not  agree  upon  any 
one  man.  But  these  difficulties  the  good  Cyprian  neither  perceived  nor  heeded. 
Yet  there  is  one  thing  ne  must  undoubtedly  have  believed,  that  to  constitute  a 
divine  decision  in  the  election  of  a  bishop,  the  harmonious  or  unanimous  con- 
sent of  the  whole  church  was  not  necessary,  but  only  the  suffrages  of  the  ma- 
jor part  of  it.  For  he  himself  was  not  elected  by  the  voice  of  the  whole  Car- 
thagenian  church;  five  of  the  presbyters,  and  doubtless,  a  portion  of  the  people, 


Prerogatives  of  Bishops.  131 

went  with  them,  wislicd  another  man  to  be  made  bishop.  His  opinion,  there- 
fore, doubtless,  was,  that  whenever  the  mnjor  part  of  a  church  pronounced  a 
mar  worthy  of  the  episcopal  office,  God  is  to  be  supposed  to  have  f-poki^n  by 
the  church,  and  to  have  mnde  him  his  ^iviest.  Of  the  arguments  on  wliich  lie 
rests  this  opinion,  I  will  mention  only  the  one  on  which  he  places  most  reliance; 
and  the  force  of  the  others,  which  he  himself  deenis  less  conclusive,  may  be  es- 
timated from  this.  He  assumes,  that  bishops  are  the  successors  of  the  apos- 
tles. Epistle  xlii.  (p.  57.  al.  Ep.  xlv.  c.  4.):  Laborare  debemus,  ut  unitatem  a 
Domino  et  per  Aposlolos  nobis  successeribus  traditam  obtinere  curemus.  This 
was  the  common  opinion  of  that  age.  On  this  assumption,  he  thus  reasons : 
But  the  Ajjostles  were  created  and  constituted  by  Christ  himself;  therefore 
also,  tlie  successors  of  the  Apostles,  the  bishops,  arc  created  by  God  himself 
and  by  Christ.  I  shall  presently  cite  a  fine  passage  relative  to  deacons,  in  which 
this  argument  is  most  distinctly  exhibited.  Bat  in  this  connexion,  higher 
chiims  are  raised  by  that  argument,  which  he  bases  on  the  authority  of  Jesua 
Christ.  For  Cyprian  solemnly  affirms,  that  by  divine  revelation,  and  [p.  691.] 
from  the  mouth  of  Christ  himself,  he  received  the  declaration  Deus  sacerdotes 
suos  facit.  Thus  he  writes,  (Epist.  Ixix.  p.  122.  al.  Ep.  Ixvi.  c.  10.):  Memini 
enirn,  qiiidjam  mihi  sil  ostensum,  itytmo  quid  sii  servo  obsequenti  et  timenti  de 
dominica  el  diiina  aucioritale  prcccepLum :  qui  inter  caetera  qua;  ostendere  et 
revelare  dignatus  est,  et  hoc  addidit:  Itaque,  qui  Chrislo  nan  credit  sacerdotem 
facienti,  et  postea  credere  incipiet  sacerdotem  vindicanti.  Now,  if  what  Cy- 
prian would  have  us  regard  as  true,  were  true,  namely,  that  Christ  himself  had 
dictated  to  him  these  denunciations  against  those  who  will  not  believe  (Chris- 
tum sacerdotes  facere)  thai  bishops  are  appointed  by  Christ ;  then  it  would  be  im- 
pious, to  doubt  the  validity  of  this  principle  ! 

I  will  now  subjoin  the  opinions  of  Cyprian  respecting  the  origin  of  the 
functions  o^ presbyters  and  deacons,  as  this  will  more  fully  and  perfectly  disclose 
to  us  his  entire  doctrine  respecting  the  office  and  prerogatives  of  bishops.  It 
is  a  pleasure  to  know  the  opinions  of  an  age  supposed  to  be  distinguished 
above  others  for  sanctity  and  the  cultivation  of  true  religion,  and  to  see  from 
what  beginnings  those  dogmas  originated,  which  are  still  held  to  be  divine  by 
many,  and  are  brought  forward  to  interrupt  the  peace  of  the  Christian  com- 
monwealth. Neither  is  this  merely  pleasant,  but  it  is  especially  useful  and  ne- 
cessary, since  learned  men  of  all  parties  have  begun  strangely  to  pervert  and 
involve  in  obscurity  the  opinions  of  the  early  ages.  To  whom  the  presbyters 
owe  their  office  and  rank,  how  extensive  their  pov/er,  and  how  far  they  are  infe- 
rior to  bishops,  Cyprian  nowhere  clearly  states.  And  those  who  shall  carefully 
peruse  his  writings  that  have  reached  us,  will  perceive  that,  when  treating  of 
firesbyters,  he  is  very  cautious  not  to  offend  persons  of  that  order,  which  includ- 
ed quite  a  number  who  were  unfriendly  to  him.  Yet  this  may  be  inferred, 
from  what  he  has  said  here  and  there  in  his  cautious  manner,  that  he  placed 
presbyters  far  below  the  bishops,  and  would  not  have  applied  to  them  his 
favorite  maxim  or  declaration,  that  God  makes  the  priests.  That  is,  he  supposed 
that  the  church,  and  not  God,  created  presbyters.  lie  has  not,  I  admit,  said  this 
in  so  many  words  in  any  of  his  writings;  but  it  is  a  necessary  consequence 


132  Century  III.— Section  24. 

from  what  he  says  respecting  the  judge  to  whom  presbyters  are  rccountable. 
A  bishop  lias  no  human  judge,  and  is  accountable  to  God  only;  because  it  is 
God  that  makes  the  bishops;  but  the  church,  collectively,  not  merely  tho 
bishop,  is  the  judge  of  presbyters, — and,  doubtless,  because  the  presbyters  re- 
ceive their  ofMce  from  the  church.  But  let  us  hear  him,  (Epist.  xi.  p.  19;  al. 
Ep.  xvi.  c.  4) :  Interim  temerarii  inter  vos  (he  is  addressing  his  presbyters,) 
Deuni  limeant,  scientes,  quoniim  si  ultra  in  iisdem  persevcraverint,  utar  ea  ad- 
monitione,  qua  me  uti  Dominus  jubet,  ut  interim  proliibe:intur  ofterre,  acturi  et 
apud  nos  et  apud  eonfessores  ipsos  et  apud  plebem  iinhersam  caussara  suam 
cum,  Domino  permittente,  in  sinum  matris  ecclcsioe  recoUigi  coeperimus.  Cy- 
prian here  claims  for  himself"  some  power  over  the  offending  presbyters ;  for 
he  threatens  them,  if  they  continue  to  offend,  that  he  svill  prohibere  offerre  ;  that 
[p.  592.]  is,  prohibit  them  from  administering  the  Lord's  supper.  But  he  very 
cautiously  adds,  that  he  assumes  this  authority  by  a  divine  command  :  qua  me 
uti  Do  minus  jubel;  thereby  acknowledging,  th;it  ordinarily  a  bisliop  could  not 
restrain  a  presbyter  from  performing  his  functions;  but  he  signiiies,  that  this 
power  was  given  to  him  by  God  in  a  vision,  such  as  he  declares  and  aflirms 
had  been  often  made  to  him,  as  his  writings  show.  But  from  the  trial  of  their 
offence  and  their  judicial  sentence,  he  wholly  separates  himself;  and  decides, 
that  the  matter  must  go  before  an  assembly  of  the  whole  church.  Because,  it 
would  seem,  that  to  the  church  which  made  them  presbyters,  it  belonged  to 
judge  of  the  magnitude  of  their  offence.  Neither  had  God,  although  declaring 
many  things  and  committing  many  things  to  him  in  visions,  or  believed  to  do 
so,  signified  his  pleasure  to  have  this  prerogative  of  the  church  abolished. — 
Concerning  Deacons,  he  speaks  more  distinctly.  For  he  very  clearly  states, 
that  they  are  constituted  neither  by  God  nor  by  the  church,  but  by  the  bishop. 
And  he  thence  infers,  that  if  they  violate  their  duty,  tiie  bishop  alone  can  pu- 
nish them,  without  consulting  the  church.  One  Rogatianus,  a  bishop,  had 
been  very  ill  treated  by  his  deacon;  but  remembering  the  ancient  prerogativet 
of  the  church,  he  would  not  himself  avenge  the  injury  he  had  received,  bul 
stated  his  grievance  to  Cyprian  and  to  the  church  of  Carthage,  undoubtedly 
asking  their  counsel.  Cyprian  replied,  (Epist.  Ixv.  p.  114;  al.  Ep.  iii.  c.  1)  : 
Tu  quidem  honorifiee  fecisti,  ut  malles  de  eo  nobis  conqueri,  cum  pro  episcopa- 
ius  vigore  et  cathedrae  aucloritate  haberes  potestaiem,  qua  posses  de  illo  slatim 
vindicari,  certus  quod  collegoe  tui  omnes  gratum  haberemus  quodcunque  circa 
diaconum  tuum  contumeliosum  sacerdotal!  potcstate  fecisscs.  This  decision  is 
followed  by  a  long  and  most  invidious  descant  on  the  reverence  and  honor  due 
to  bishops,  and  the  punishments  which  those  merit  who  treat  bishops  with  in- 
dignity ;  which,  I  could  wish,  had  been  written  by  some  other  person  than  Cy- 
p-ian  the  martyr  ;  for,  in  truth,  it  is  quite  futile,  and  unworthy  of  so  great  a  man. 
He  first  shows,  from  the  law  of  Moses,  (Deut.  xvii.  12,  13,)  that  God  decreed 
capital  punishment  against  the  despisers  of  the  Jewish  priests,  who,  he  thinks, 
did  not  differ  from  the  Christian  priests  ;  and  then  he  mentions  Corah,  Dathan, 
and  Abiram,  with  their  friends  and  associates,  who  suffered  terrible  punishment 
at  the  hands  of  divine  justice  for  their  impiety.  His  own  words  are :  Ut  proba- 
reiuVi  sacerdoies  Dei  ab  eo,  qui  sacerdoies  facii  (in  speaking  of  bishops  he  could 


Prerogatives  of  Bishops.  133 

not  omit  liis  favorite  maxim:  Dens  sacerdotes  facU.)  vindicari.  Other  argu- 
ments of  similar  strenglli  then  ibllow,  iVom  the  Old  Testament.  Lastly,  ho 
gravely  asserts,  that  Jesus  Christ  liimself  has  taught  us  by  his  example,  that 
bishops  are  to  be  treated  with  the  highest  respect;  for  Ciirist  said  to  the  leper 
(Mntth.  viii.  4,)  "  Go  and  show  thyself  to  the  'priest ;"  and  when,  at  his  trial,  he 
was  smitten  on  the  cheek,  (John,  xviii.  22,  23,)  he  uttered  nothing  reproachful 
against  the  Jewish  high  priest,  (ibid.  e.  2) :  Qnas  omnia  ab  eo  idco  facta  sunt 
humiliter  atque  patientcr,  ut  nos  humilitatis  ac  patieiitia?  haberemus  [p.  593.] 
exemplum.  Ducuit  cnini  sacerdotes  veros  legitime  et  ylene  honoraria  dum  circa 
falsos  sacerdotes  ipse  talis  exstitit.  But  all  these  arguments,  if  indeed  they 
prove  anything,  only  prove  that  great  respect  is  due  to  bishops,  and  that  those 
who  despise  or  revile  them  should  be  punished  very  severely ;  and  not  that  a 
bishop  is  the  proper  judge  of  tiie  deacons,  and  may  punish  them  if  they  resist  him. 
And  therefi)re  he  now  proceeds  to  establish  this  prerogative  as  belonging  to 
bishops.  His  reasoning  is  this,  (ibid.  c.  3.)  Because  the  bishop  makes  a  deacon^ 
he  says:  Meminisse  autem  Diaconi  debent,  quouiam  Apostolos,  id  est,  episco- 
pos  et  prapositos  Doininus  elegit  diaconos  autem  post  ascensum  Domini  in, 
coelos  Apostoli  sibiconstitusrant  episcopatus  sui  et  ecclesige  ministros.  Quod  si 
nos  aliquid  audere  contra  Deum  possumus,  qui  episcopos  facit,  possunt  et  con- 
tra nos  audere  diaconi,  a  quibus  fiunt.  Much  is  wrapt  up  in  these  few  words : 
For,  firsts  he  shows  why  we  must  believe  his  darling  principle,  that  God  makes 
the  bishops.  Christ  made  the  Apostles;  but  the  bishops  have  succeeded  to  the 
place  of  the  Apostles;  therefore,  not  men,  but  God  and  Christ  make  the 
bishops.  Secondly,  he  shows  that  to  l»ishops  belongs  the  power  of  making  dea- 
cons, by  this  argument:  The  Apostles  appointed  the  first  deacons;  but  the 
bishops  have  the  same  prerogatives  as  the  Apostles,  for  they  are  their  succes- 
sors; therefore  deacons  derive  their  office  from  the  bishops,  or,  the  bishops 
make  the  deacons.  This  reasoning  may  surprise  those  who  recollect  that  ac- 
cording to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  it  was  the  church,  or  people,  acting  accord- 
ing to  a  suggestion  of  the  Apostles,  and  not  the  Apostles  themselves,  that  first 
of  all  constituted  deacons.  But  either  this  fact  did  not  occur  to  Cyprian  while 
writing  with  excited  feelings,  or  he  deemed  it  expedient  not  to  notice  it.  Ac- 
cording to  Cyprian,  then,  inasmuch  as  the  bishops  make  deacons,  it  must  be 
clear  also,  that  they  have  the  right  to  coerce  and  punish  offending  deacons ;  as 
he  attempted  to  show  to  his  fellow  bishop  Rogatianus.  Lastly,  arguing  still 
from  his  assumptions,  which  he  takes  for  facts,  he  shows  that  deacons  must  ne- 
ver oppose  a  bishop.  For,  bishops  must  never  oppose  God,  by  whom  they 
were  constituted;  and  therefore  deacons  must  never  oppose  the  bishoi)s,  by 
whom  they  were  constituted.  Admirable  reasoning,  truly!  But  we  should  re- 
collect that  Cyprian  was  a  rhetorician. — Having  settled  all  these  points,  as  ho 
supposed,  by  sound  reasoning,  undoubtedly,  (for  I  am  unwilling  to  believe 
that  he  acted  in  sincerity,)  he  gives  the  following  as  his  deliberate  opinion, 
(ibid.  c.  3)  :  Ideo  oportet  diaconum  prseposito  suo  plena  humilitate  satisfacere. 
-  -  Quod  si  ultra  te  provocavcrit,  fungeris  circa  cum  potcstate  honoris  tni,  ut 
eum  vel  doponas  vel  abstineas.  And  still  more  liberal,  he  assigns  to  Rogatia- 
nus authority  also  over  the  associates  and  friends  of  the  deacon  :  Et  quoniam 


134  Century  III. — Section  24. 

scripsisti,  quendam  cum  eodem  diacono  tuo  se  miscuisse-et  .^;uperbia2  ejus  atque 
audacia3  paiticipcm  esse,  liunc  quoquc  et  si  qui  aiii  tales  extiterint  et  contra  fcu- 
[p.  594.]  cerdotem  Dei  (so  he  commonly  desi<^nates  a  bishop,)  feceriut,  vel 
coercere  potes  vel  abstiiiere.  But,  may  the  manes  of  St.  Cyprian  forgive  me  ! 
In  this,  as  in  other  things,  he  abandoned  and  changed  the  ancient  law  of  the 
church,  through  his  excessive  anxiety  to  extend  the  prerogatives  of  bishops. 
By  the  ancient  law,  the  bishop  could  neitlier  make  deacons  nor  deprive  ihem  of 
tiieir  othce,  at  his  pleasure;  but  to  the  whole  multitude,  or  the  church,  per- 
tained both.  And  this,  strange  to  tell,  he  himself  confesses  and  maintains  on 
another  occasion  and  in  another  place.  For,  being  of  a  fervid  temperament, 
he  at  times  forgets  in  the  ardor  of  debate,  what  he  had  elseu  here  inculcated. 
In  his  68th  Epistle,  (p.  118;  al.  Ep.  Ixvii,  c.  4,)  after  maintaining  the  rights  of 
the  people  in  the  creation  of  bishops,  and  asserting  that  the  ordinalion  of  a  bishop 
is  legilimale  and  right  only ^  quae  omnium  suffragio  eijudiciofuerii  examinata,  he 
immediately  adds,  that  he  would  have  the  same  rule  applied  to  deacons ;  and  he 
denies  that  the  Apostles  alone  constituted  the  deacons  :  Nee  hoc  in  episcoporum 
tantum  et  sacerdotum,  sed  el  in  diaconorum  ordinaLumibus  observasse  Aposto- 
los  animadvertimus,  de  quo  et  ipso  in  Aclis  eorum  scriptuin  est:  Et  convoca- 
runt,  inquit,  illi  duodecim  totam  plebem  discipulorum. — Quod  utique  idcirco 
tam  diligenter  et  caute  convocata  plebe  tota  gerebatur,  ne  quis  ad  altaris  minis- 
terium  vel  ad  sacerdotalem  locum  indlgnus  obreperet.  Now,  therefore,  it  will 
be  manifest,  how  Cyprian  makes  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons  to  differ  from 
each  other.  God  makes  the  priests  or  bishops ;  the  church  makes  the  presby- 
ters; and  the  bi-hop  makes  the  deacons.  And  theicfore,  God  only  is  the  judge 
of  the  bishops;  the  church  the  judge  of  presbyters;  and  the  bishop  the  judge 
of  deacons. 

On  this,  his  darling  maxim,  that  God  makes  the  priests  or  bishops,  which  he 
deduces  from  the  parity  of  bishops  witii  the  Apostles,  Cyprian  erects  a  large  su- 
perstructure of  prerogatives  and  honors,  which,  in  his  judgment,  bishops  ought 
to  enjoy.  For  his  first  inference  from  it  is,  that  all  the  pi'crogatives  which  be- 
longed to  the  Apostles  whom  Clirist  himself  created,  belong  also  to  the  bishops 
their  successors.  Secondly,  he  infers  from  it,  that  no  one  should  judge  of  the 
actions  of  bishops  but  God  only,  by  whom  they  were  made.  And  hence  he  is 
often  very  angry  with  those  who  call  in  question  the  things  done  by  bishops. 
He  writes  to  Florentius,  (Epist.  Ixix.  p.  121 ;  al.  Ep.  Ixvi.  c.  1)  :  Animadverto 
te  -  -  in  mores  nostros  diligenter  inquirere,  et  post  Deum  judicem,  qui  sa- 
cerdotes  facit,  te  velle  -  -  de  Dei  et  Christi  judicio  judlcare.  Hoc  est  in 
Deum  non  credere.  -  -  Nam  credere  quod  indigni  sint  qui  ordinantur,  quid  aliud 
est,  quam  credere,  quod  non  a  Deo  nee  per  Deum  sacerdotes  ejus  in  cctlesia 
constituantur  ?  And,  after  much  of  the  same  import,  he  adds,  (c.  4,  5)  :  Dolena 
ha3C  profero,  cum  te  judicem  Dei  constituas  et  Christi,  qui  dicit  ad  Aj)(>stolos  ac 
per  hoe  ad  omnes  pra3positos,  qui  Apostolis  vicaria  ordinatione  succedunt;  qui 
audit  vos,  me  audit:  et  qui  me  audit,  eum  audit,  qui  me  misit.  Inde  enim 
[p.  595.]  schismata  et  haereses  oborlas  sunt  et  oriuntur,  duni  episcopus,  qui 
unus  est  et  eeclesiae  prajest,  superba  quorundam  praesumtione  contemnitur, 
et  homo  dignalione  Dei  honoratus  indignus  hominibus  judicatur.     Quis  enim 


Prerogatives  of  Bishops.  I35 

hic  est  superbire  tunjor,  qua;  nrroofantia  .'uiimi,  qiire  mentis  inflatio,  ad  coirnUio- 
nem  siiam  priepositos  et  saocnlotes  vocaro  ?  What  force  tliero  is  in  all  this, 
ami  whithoi-  it  tentls,  is  sufficiently  manifest!  But  he  goes  even  farther  than 
tiiis,  and  maintains,  that  the  whole  church  is  comprised  in  the  bisliop:  whence 
it  follows,  that  no  person  is  a  member  of  the  church  unless  he  is  obedient  to 
the  bishop,  or  in  subjection  to  him.  But  the  church  is  a  unity ;  and  in  the  es- 
tablishment of  this  doctrine  Cyprinn  spent  much  labor  and  pains ;  and  his  trea- 
tise de  unilate  ecclesicc  is  still  extant.  Of  course  all  bishops  also,  as  they  properly 
constitute  the  church,  must  form  a  unity  of  some  sort,  and  be  held  together  by 
an  indissoluble  bond.  And  if  this  be  so,  then  we  must  believe,  that  a  person 
who  separates  himself  from  one  bishop,  separates  himself  from  all,  and  at  the 
same  time  from  tiie  whole  ehuix;h  ;  and  he  excludes  himself  from  heaven, 
as  well  as  from  the  church.  This  Cyprian  maintains  in  his  69th  Epistle, 
(p.  123;  al.  Ep.  Ixvi.  c.  8.)  He  first  gives  his  definition  of  the  church:  Ec- 
clesia  est  plebs  sacerdoti  adunata  el  pasiori  suo  grex  adhccrens.  Assuming  this,  his 
JirU  inference  is:  Unde  scire  debes  episcopum  in  ecclesia  esse,  et  ecclesiayn  in  epis- 
copo,  el  si  qids  cum  episcopo  non  sil,  in  ecclesia  nan  esse.  Very  true,  provided 
the  definition  is  faultless  !  And  there  are  other  instances,  from  which  we  may 
learn  that  Cyprian  well  understood  the  great  power  there  is  in  definitions,  and 
that  any  thing  may  be  proved,  if  a  neat  and  suitable  definition  can  be  devised. 
But  he  supposes  some  one  m:iy  come  forward  with  this  objection :  I  dissent  in- 
deed from  you,  and  from  some  other  bishops ;  but  I  fully  accord  with  another, 
or  several  other  bishops:  if  then  the  man  is  in  the  church  who  adheres  to  his 
own  bishop,  I  am  in  the  church,  for  I  adhere  to  the  pastor  whom  I  have  chosen. 
By  no  means,  says  Cyprian  :  Whoever  dissents  from  me,  dissents  from  all :  he 
who  forsakes  the  bishop  under  whom  he  lives,  forsakes  them  all,  (Ibid.  e.  8) : 
Et  frustra  sibi  blandiri  eos,  qui  pacem  cum  sacerdolibus  Dei  (that  is,  with  the 
bishops  in  whose  congregations  they  live,)  non  habentes,  obrepuni,  et  latenler 
apud  quosdam  (other  bishops,)  communicare  se  credunt,  quando  ecclesia,  qua: 
calholica  et  una  est  (add :  et  in  episcopis  posi/a,)  scissa  non  sil  neque  diiisa,  sed 
sit  utique  cnnnexa  et  cohccrenlium  sibi  invicem  sacerdoium  glul.ino  copulata.  Sub- 
servient to  the  support  and  confirmation  of  this  doctrine,  is  that  whole  topic,  so 
often  and  so  carefully  discussed  by  Cyprian,  respecting  the  vnily  of  the  church; 
a  topic  broached  by  others  long  before  him,  and  in  Africn,  by  Tertullian  in  par- 
ticular, but  never  investigated,  elucidated,  and  made  as  intelligible  as  its  impor- 
tance required.  In  explaining  and  illustrating  this  topic,  the  holy  man  is  so 
little  consistent  with  himself,  so  unsettled  and  indeterminate  in  his  views,  that 
we  readily  perceive  he  indistinctly  grasped  his  subject,  and  his  greatest  [p.  .5*J6.] 
admirers  will  not  deny  that  he  made  some  mistakes. — But  magniticent  as  these 
views  were,  and  extravagantly  as  they  honored  episcopacy,  yet  they  did  not 
satisfy  Cyprian  :  to  make  the  dignity  of  Bisho])s  completely  inviolable,  he  deemed 
it  nessessary  to  add,  that  they  represent  Christ  himself,  and  that  they  not  only 
guide  and  rule  us  as  his  vicegerents,  but  also  sit  in  judgment  upon  us.  And 
this,  he  thinks,  is  easily  inferred  from  the  divine  origin  of  bishops.  Now  ii"  the 
bishops  represent  the  person  of  Christ  among  men,  if  they  act  and  decide  in  his 
Btcad,  then  it  is  manifest,  that  to  resist  and  oppose  them,  or  to  refuse  to  obey 


130  Century  III. —Section  24. 

their  mandates,  would  be  to  offend  the  divine  miijesty  and  despise  Christ  him- 
self. And  the  excellent  Cyprian  would  have  us  believe  it  is  really  so.  Thia 
sentiment  he  nowhere  maintains  with  more  vehemence  ard  eloquence  than  in 
his  55th  Epistle,  ad  Cornelium,  (p.  81,  82,  &e.  al.  Ep.  lix.  c.  2.  7;)  an  Epistle, 
which,  I  confess,  I  never  read  without  some  pleasure  and  admiration.  The 
Carthagenian  bishop  writes  to  the  bishop  of  Rome,  who  ought  to  know,  the 
best  of  all  men,  what  were  the  powers  and  what  the  prerogatives  and  honors 
belonging  to  Christian  bishops,  he  being  himself,  as  Cyprian  admitted,  the 
(frinceps)  chief  of  nU  the  bishops.  And  yet  the  Carthagenian  prelate  instructs  the 
Roman,  just  as  a  master  would  one  of  his  least  pupils,  very  minutely,  rc.'^pccting 
the  powers  and  the  dignity  of  bishops;  and,  pretty  clearly  taxes  him  with  igno- 
rance on  this  most  important  subject.  For  Cornelius,  the  good  bishop  of  Rome, 
was  more  modest  than  Cyprian  wished  him  to  be,  and  seemed  not  fully  to  un- 
derstand the  immense  amplitude  and  elevation  of  his  prelacy :  he  conceded 
much  to  his  clergy:  and  miicii  to  the  people:  and  moreover  sullered  himself  to 
be  terrified  by  the  threats  of  Cyprian's  adversaries  wlio  had  gone  to  Rome. 
And  therefore  Cyprian  thus  addresses  him,  near  tlie  commencement  of  the 
Epistle,  (c.  2.):  Quod  si  ita  res  est,  frater  carissime,  ut  nequissimorum  timeatur 
audacia,  -  -  actum  est  de  episcopatus  vigore,  et  de  ecclesise  gubernandse  sublimi 
€ic  divina  potestaie^  nee  Christiani  ultra  aut  durare,  aut  esse  jam  possumus.  This 
rebuke  he  protracts  to  a  considerable  length,  and  then  adds  a  long  oration,  in 
which  he  informs  Cornelius,  by  citing  many  passages  of  holy  Scripture,  (which 
no  competent  judge  will  deem  to  be  in  point,)  that  a  bishop  is  a  great  man,  and 
has  no  superior  among  mortals,  except  Jesus  Christ.  This  instrnction  took 
eifect  on  Cornelius^  and  on  all  his  successors;  among  whom  it  is  well  known, 
not  one  has  been  so  ignorant  of  his  own  authority  and  importance  as  to  need 
80  stern  a  monitor  and  instructor.  Let  us  see  how  Cyprian  closes  that  oration, 
(Ibid.  c.  7.):  cum  haec  tanta  et  talia  et  multa  alia  exempla  pra3cedant,  quibus 
eacerdotalis  auctoritas  et  potestas  de  divina  dignatione  firmatur,  quales  putas 
cos,  qui  sacerdotum  hostes,  et  contra  ecclesiam  eatliolicam  rebelles  nt-c  pnemo- 
[p.  597.]  nentis  Domini  communicatione,  nee  futuri  judicii  ultione  terrentur ?  Ne- 
que  enim  aliunde  hroreses  abortoe  sunt,  aut  nata  sunt  schismata,  quam  inde,  quod 
sacerdoti  Dei  non  obtemperatur,  nee  unus  in  ecclesia  ad  lempus  sacerdoSyCl  ad 
tempus  judex  vice  Chrisli  cogilaLur ;  cui  si  secundum  magisieria  divina  obleynpe' 
raret  fralerniLas  unixersa,  nemo  adcersum  sacerdotum  colle-^ium  moveret.  'J'ho 
rest  I  omit.  Here  then  we  have  the  author  of  that  proud  title,  Vicar  of  Jesus 
Christ,  which  the  Roman  Pontiffs  at  this  day  claim  as  exclusively  theirs.  The 
author  of  it  was  not  born  at  Rome :  but  an  African  bishop  first  taught  the  Ro- 
man prelate,  that  all  bishops  ought  to  assume  it.  And  it  was  commonly  adopted, 
from  tins  time  onwnrd,  by  all  bishops;  as  h:is  been  proved  by  Joseph  Bingham 
in  his  Origines  Ecclesiasticce,  (vol.  i.  p.  81,  82.  Lib.  ii.  c.  ii.  ^  10.)  I  will  add, 
that  down  to  the  ni7ilh  century,  it  was  customary  to  speak  of  all  bishops  as  the 
Vicars  of  Christ:  for  Servatus  Lupus,  a  writer  of  that  century,  (or  rather,  all 
the  bishops  in  the  part  of  Gaul  denominated  Senonia,  in  whose  name  Servatus 
wrote,)  honored  Aeneas,  the  bishop  of  Paris,  with  this  title.  (Epist.  xcix.  p. 
149.  ed.  Baluze.)  :  Consolatloncm  recipimus,  dum  vos  sub  pastore  bono  (Christo) 


Morals  of  the   Clenjy.  137 

ngentes,  qui  summc  bonus  est.  vicarium  ejus  (boiu  pastoris)  scilicet  xisibilem. 
niinistesiique  noslri  consortem,  absque  dilatione  expetere  -  -  cognovimus.  But 
after  this  period,  the  Roman  Pontiffs  were  accustomed  to  appropriate  Uiis,  a8 
well  as  the  other  honorary  titles  of  the  ancient  bishops,  exclusively  to  them- 
selves. In  short,  whatever  prerogatives  the  greatest  of  the  Roman  Ponlils  at 
this  day  arrogate  to  themselves,  with  perhaps  the  single  exception  of  infallibility, 
were  all  asi-ribed  by  Cyprian  to  the  bishops  universally;  which  fact  shows,  how 
greatly  his  views  differed  from  the  modern,  respecting  the  nature  and  govern- 
ment of  the  church.  And  as  he  thought,  so  he  acted.  For  whoever  candidly 
surveys  and  considers  those  contests  which  distracted  his  life,  will  perceive,  that 
most  of  them  originated  from  his  zeal  for  innovations  on  the  ancient  rights  of 
the  Carthagenian  church,  and  amplifying  tlie  powers  and  the  dignity  of  the 
bishop.  Most  of  the  business  he  managed  according  to  his  own  pleasure  and 
volition,  regardless  of  the  consent  or  opinions  of  either  presbyters,  or  deacons, 
or  the  people.  And  hence  frequently  the  presbyters,  the  deacons,  or  a  portion 
of  the  people,  resisted  his  wishes,  and  complained  that  they  were  injured.  But 
he  rose  above  them  all,  being  a  vigorous  and  fearless  man ;  and  his  doctrines 
respecting  the  unity  of  the  church  and  the  authority  of  bishops,  were  propagated 
by  means  of  his  Epistles,  over  the  whole  church.  It  is  amazing  to  see,  what 
influence  he  acquired  throughout  the  Christian  world,  after  his  magnanimoua 
martyrdom  for  Christ,  so  that  he  was  accounted  almost  the  common  teacher 
and  oracle  of  all.  Those  who  would  look  into  this  subject,  may  read  the  18th 
Oration  of  Gregory  Nazianzen,  in  commemoration  of  him.  [p.  598.] 

§  XXV.  The  Morals  of  the  Clergy.  Many  complaints  occnr  hero 
and  there  in  the  writers  of  this  century,  of  the  corrupt  morals 
of  the  clergy ;  and  these  complaints  cannot  be  supposed  to  bd 
vain  and  groundless :  and  yet  splendid  examples  of  primitive 
integrity  and  sanctity  are  frequently  to  be  seen,  both  among  the 
bishops  and  among  the  presbyters  and  deacons ;  examples  well 
adapted  to  impress  the  human  mind,  and  to  exhibit  the  power 
of  religion.  Bad  men  were  therefore  commingled  with  the  good  ; 
and  those  deserve  not  our  confidence,  who,  as  many  in  ftxct  do, 
would  measure  the  happiness  of  this  age  by  the  examples  of 
either  of  these  descriptions.(')  I  will  therefore  only  observe,  that 
the  growing  errors  among  Christians,  respecting  the  nature  of 
true  piety,  had  such  influence  on  not  a  few  of  the  ministers  of 
religion,  that  by  striving  to  obtain  a  reputation  for  sanctity,  they 
brought  upon  themselves  disgrace  and  a  suspicion  of  criminal 
conduct.  A  striking  example  of  this  is  afforded  by  those  in 
Africa,  and  perhaps  also  in  other  provinces  of  the  East,  avIio 
received  into  their  houses  females  who  had  vowed  perpetual 
cliastity,  and  even  made  them  partakers  of  their  bed,  at  the  same 


138  Century  III.— Section  25. 

time  most  solemnly  protesting  that  nothing  occurred  incompati- 
ble with  modesty.  For,  extravagant  ideas  of  the  sanctity  of 
celibac}''  having  grown  np,  and  consequently  those  among  the 
priests  being  regarded  as  most  venerable,  and  the  most  acceptable 
before  God,  who  had  no  wives,  many  wished  so  to  consult  their 
reputation,  as  still  to  retain  a  measure  of  social  comforts  and  en- 
joyments. The  bishops,  by  their  exhortations  and  precepts,  re- 
sisted this  custom,  which  was  very  offensive  to  the  people:  but, 
so  very  powerful  is  every  thing  which  favors  our  natural  instincts, 
that  this  practice  could  not  be  wholly  exterminated,  either  in  this 
century  or  the  next.C*) 

(1)  Complaints  respecting  the  vices  of  the  clergy  in  this  century,  arc  made 
by  nearly  all  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers,  who  attempt  to  assign  the  causes  of 
the  calamities,  with  which  the  Christians  of  this  century  often  had  to  eontlict. 
See  Origen's  Commentatory  on  Matthew,  (P.  I.  0pp.  edit.  Hnet.  p.  420,  441, 
442.)  Cyprian,  m  many  of  his  Epistles,  Eusehius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  viii.  c.  1.) 
and  others.  Those  of  the  present  day,  who  read  tiiese  complaints,  which  often 
resemble  the  declamations  of  rhetoricians,  are  apt  to  conclude  that  almost  nothing 
of  the  primitive  piety  of  the  church  remained  in  this  age.  But  it  is  not  ditHeuIt 
to  collect  from  the  same  writers,  many  testimonies  to  the  innocence  and  the 
pure  morals  of  the  pastors  and  ministers  of  the  churches:  and  therefore  otliers 
are  induced  by  these  high  commendations,  to  assert,  that,  with  perhaps  a  few 
[p.  599.J  exceptions,  all  the  clergy  were  free  from  every  vice.  And  from  such 
wide  sweeping  general  commendations,  and  accusations,  dictated  for  the  most 
part,  and  colored  by  impassioned  feelings,  in  my  opinion,  little  or  nothing  can 
be  inferred  with  certainty.  And  the  judgment  which  Origen  passed,  appears 
to  me  more  probable:  (Contra  Celsum,  L.  iii.  p.  129,  cd.  Spencer.)  He  admits 
that  there  were  some  among  the  Christian  bishops  and  teachers,  who  did 
not  do  their  duty  as  they  ought;  but,  he  adds,  it  is  nevertheless  certain  that 
if  the  Christian  prefects  and  senators,  are  compared  with  the  pagan  senators, 
magistrates  and  judges,  the  latter  will  fall  far  behind  the  former,  in  probity, 
virtue,  and  integrity.  Such,  I  apprehend,  was  in  general  the  fact.  In  many  of 
the  (christian  bishops  and  teachers,  there  were  various  things  reprehensible  and 
defective,  if  we  judge  them  by  the  strict  rules  of  the  divine  law;  and  yet  they 
ap])eared  to  be  all  excellent  men,  and  patterns  of  virtue,  if  compared  with  those 
magistrates  of  cities  and  countries,  who  were  opposed  to  Christianily ;  among 
whom  examples  of  goodness  and  justice  were  very  rare.  And  the  same  will 
hold  true  of  the  Christian  common  people. 

(2)  This  scandalous  practice  of  some  Christian  priests,  in  admitting  females 
to  be  inmates  of  their  dwellings,  is  professedly  treated  of  by  Henry  Dodwellj 
in  his  DisscTtaliones  Cijprianicx,  (Diss,  iii.)  and  by  Ludov.  Anton.  Muraiori,  in 
his  Disquisilio  de  Synisactis  el  Agapetis,  (thus  these  females  were  designated.) 
The  Disquis.  is  to  be  found  in  his  Anecdota  Grccca,  (p.  218.)    The  former  lets 


Morals  of  the   Clergy.  139 

his  prejudices  carry  liirn  too  far;  and  the  latter  is  quite  too  favorable  to  the 
views  of  the  Romish  church  respecting  the  sanctity  of  celibacy.  This  shameful 
custom,  doubtless,  existed  before  the  third  century;  and  we  meet  some  slight 
traces  of  it  in  Ifermas,  in  Tertullian,  and  perhaps  in  otiiers.  But  a  clear  and 
distinct  mention  of  it,  is  made  by  no  one  before  Cyprian,  who  severely  inveighs 
ag:iinst  it  in  several  of  his  epistles.  But  this  and  other  questions  relating  to 
this  subject,  I  pass  over,  as  not  pertinent  to  my  present  object;  and  I  will  con- 
fine myself  to  one  f  ict,  which  learned  men  have  cither  entirely  omitted,  or  have 
treated  only  with  much  obscurity.  All  the  priests  did  not  assume  this  liberty 
of  taking  women  into  their  houses  and  to  their  beds,  but  only  those  who  had 
voluntarily  renounced  the  right  to  marry,  which  all  priests  possessed  in  this 
century,  or  had  made  a  solemn  vow  of  per[ietual  chastity,  for  the  sake  of  at- 
t4iining  to  higher  sanctity.  For  this  custom  of  binding  themselves  by  such 
vows  was  very  common  in  those  times.  Neither  were  all  females  taken  in  such 
cohabitation,  but  only  virgins:  nor  indeed  all  virgins,  but  those  only,  who  had 
professed  never  to  marry,  but  to  preserve  their  bodies  entirely  consecrated  to 
God,  Tliose  who  mark  these  circumstances,  will  perceive  the  true  nature 
and  character  of  this  most  vile  and  perilous  practice.  These  cohabitations,  in 
fiict,  were  a  sort  of  sacred  or  divine  marriages  between  persons  bound,  on  both 
sides,  by  vows  of  perpetual  ciiastity ;  marriages,  I  say,  not  of  their  bodies,  but 
of  their  souls.  For  those  early  theologians,  whose  views  most  of  the  [p.  600.] 
moderns  imperfectly  understand,  supposed  that  there  was  both  an  external  mar- 
riage of  bodies  and  also  an  internal  marriage  of  souls;  and  that,  as  bodies  are 
often  united,  while  the  souls  are  very  discordant,  so  also,  they  supposed,  souls 
might  be  united  in  marriage  or  become  associated,  without  any  consociation  or 
marriage  of  the  bodies.  It  is  well  known,  that  many  mnrried  Christians  in 
those  days,  by  mutual  consent,  made  vows  of  continence,  and  yet  wished  to  be 
regarded  as  remaining  married  persons,  and  they  were  so  regarded.  S.iya 
Terlullian  (ad  Uxorera  L.  i.  c.  6.  p.  185.) :  Quot  sunt,  qui  consensu  pari  inter 
Be  matrimonii  debitum  tollunt?  voluntarii  spadones  pro  cupiditate  regni  coslestis. 
Quod  si  saho  matrimonio  abstinentia  toleratur,  qunnto  magis  adempto?  In 
these  married  persons,  the  external  marriage  or  that  of  their  bodies  was  an- 
nulled, but  the  interior  and  more  holy- marriage  of  their  souls,  not  only  con- 
tinued, but  was  even  strengthened.  Now  the  radical  principle  of  the  cohabita- 
tions which  we  are  considering,  was  the  same  with  that  just  described;  and  the 
forrner  differed  from  the  latter  merely  in  this,  that  the  one  had  voluntarily  taken 
vows  of  ahslinence  from  a  marriage  of  bodies,  and  the  other  had  voluntarily 
taken  vows  for  the  dissolution  of  such  marriage. 

These  observations,  will,  I  think,  enable  us  to  understand  why  the  nninarried 
cohabitants  supposed  their  mode  of  lilc  not  liable  to  the  reproaches  cast  upon 
it,  and  tlierefure  cornjjlained  of  the  injustice  of  the  suspicions  heaped  upon  them. 
Those  married  Christians,  who  voluntarily  subjected  themselves  to  the  law  of 
continence,  could  still  live  together,  and  sleep  together,  and  no  one  took  offence 
at  it,  or  suspected  them  of  secretly  violating  the  rule  of  chastity  whirh  they 
imposed  on  themselves.  On  the  contrary,  most  people  considered  the  force  <>f 
religious  vows  to  be  so  great,  that  their  voluntary  vow  was  sufliciciit  to  keep 


140  Century  IIL—Sectlon  2G. 

them  from  any  improper  intercourse.  And  therefore,  as  our  unmarried  coliabi- 
tants  were  living  together  on  the  same  principle,  they  supposed  the  same  things 
to  be  hiwfnl  for  them  ;  and  as  both  equ.illy  made  solemn  vows  of  chastity,  so 
all,  they  supposed  ought  to  conclude,  that  the  force  oUheir  vow  would  make 
it  impossible  for  them  to  violate  the  law  of  chastity.  This  at  least  we  regard 
as  certnin,  that  many  of  the  tenets  and  practices  of  the  early  Christians,  which 
displease  us,  would  appear  more  tolerable,  and  would  assume  a  more  becoming 
aspect,  if  they  were  tried  by  the  opinions  and  customs  of  those  times. 

§   XXYI.    Christian  Writers  of  this  Century.    Amoilg  tllOSC  ^vllO 

superintended  and  managed  tlic  affairs  of  the  cliurcli,  there  were 
doubtless  more  learned  and  well-informed  men  than  in  the  pre- 
vious centuries.  For  many  from  the  different  sects  of  philoso- 
phers, especially  from  the  Platonists,  and  also  from  among  the  rhe- 
toricians, embraced  Christianity ;  and  they  were  honored  for  their 
[p.  601.]  erudition  and  talents  by  being  made  bishops  and  presby- 
ters. The  Christians  likewise  perceived,  that  their  cause  needed 
the  support  of  learning  and  human  science,  and  therefore  took 
pains  to  have  the  youth  of  the  church  instructed  in  sound  learn- 
ing and  philosophy.  And  yet  it  is  well  attested,  and  not  to  be 
denied,  that  many  illiterate  and  ignorant  men  presided  over  the 
churches,  in  numerous  places,  and  that  human  learning  was  not 
yet  considered  as  an  indispensable  qualification  of  a  good  bishop 
and  teacher.  For,  not  to  mention  the  paucity  of  schools  in  which 
candidates  for  the  sacred  office  might  be  educated,  and  the  conse- 
quent scarcity  of  the  learned  men,  the  opinion  was  too  deepl}^  fix- 
ed in  many  minds  to  be  at  all  eradicated,  that  learning  and  phi- 
losophy were  prejudicial  rather  than  advantageous  to  piety,  and 
should  therefore  be  excluded  from  the  church. (')  And  hence, 
only  a  few  Christians  in  this  age  obtained  permanent  notoriety, 
by  their  Avritings.  Among  those  who  wrote  in  Greek,  the  most 
eminent  was  Origen^  who  presided  in  the  school  of  Alexandria, 
a  man  of  indefatigable  industry,  and  equalled  by  few  in  learning 
and  genius,  but  of  whose  Avorks  the  greatest  and  best  part  arc 
lost,  and  a  part  are  preserved  only  in  Latin.  Inferior  to  him  in 
fame  and  reputation,  but  not,  I  think,  in  solid  worth  and  genius, 
were  Julius  Africanus,  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  and  Hippolytus^ 
most  of  whose  writings  have  unfortunately  not  been  preserved. 
Eminent  among  the  discii)les  of  Origen,  was  Gregory^  bishop  of 
Neocoesaria,  more  famous  for  the  numerous  miracles  said  to  have 
been  wrought  by  him,  and  from  wliich  he  obtained  the  surname 


Christian  Writers.  141 

of  Thainnnturgv.s,  than  for  liis  writings.(')— Among  the  Latins, 
only  three  deserve  our  notiec  :  Cyprian^  first  a  rhetorician,  and 
then  bishop  of  Carthage,  a  man,  like  most  Africans,  ])ossessing 
eloquence,  but  at  the  same  time  tumid,  and  more  splendid  in 
his  Avords  and  phrases  than  in  his  conceptions  ;  Minucius  Fdix, 
from  whoso  pen  we  have  a  neat  and  elegant  dialogue,  entitled 
Odavias,  in  which  he  skilful!}^  recounts  and  nervously  confutes 
the  calumnies  then  charged  upon  Christians ;  und  Aimohius^  an 
African  rhetorician,  Avho  strenuously  defended  the  cause  of  Chris- 
tianity against  its  opposers,  and  often  with  ingenuity,  in  hia 
Libri  septem  contra  Gentes:  but  he  shows  himself  to  be  not  well 
acquainted  with  the  religion  which  he  dcfends.('') 

(1)  III  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  falsely  .iscribed  to  Clemens  [p.  602.] 
Ronnniis,  there  is  a  chnpter,  (Lib.  i.  c.  C,  in  the  Patres  Apostol.  torn.  1.  p. 
204.)  in  whieh  the  reading  of  books  on  hnman  learning  is  prohibited:  and  Co- 
teller,  m  a  note  on  the  chapter,  has  collected  ni;iny  passages  of  a simil.-ir  nature 
from  the  early  Christian  writers.  And  it  is  well  known,  how  much  Origen 
was  disliked  by  many,  on  account  of  his  attachment  to  science  and  philoso- 
phy:  and,  while  vindicating  himself  in  an  Epistle  toEusebius,  he  can  mention 
only  here  and  there  an  individual,  who  pursued  a  similar  course. 

(2)  Those  wishing  to  become  acquainted  with  the  Christian  Greek  writers 
of  this  and  of  every  age,  will  find  all  they  can  desire,  in  the  Bihiiotheca  Grctca 
of  Jo.  Alb.  Fabricius.  The  works  of  Origen  explanatory  of  Scripture,  wero 
first  published  entire  and  correctly,  and  with  valuable  notes,  by  Peter  Daniel 
Huet:  to  which  he  added  a  very  learned  work  entitled  Origeniana,  containing 
elaborate  discussions  respecting  the  history  and  opinions  of  Origen  ;  Rouen, 
1668,  fob,  and  reprinted  in  Germany.  Afterwards  Bern,  de  Monlfaucon,  a 
very  learned  Benedictine,  published  what  remains  of  Origen's  Hexapla,  in  two 
vols,  fob,  Paris,  1714.  Lastly,  Charles  de  la  Rve,  also  a  Benedictine  monk, 
nnd  distinguished  for  talents  and  learning,  undertook  to  publish  all  the  works 
of  Origen  which  have  escaped  the  ravages  of  time,  from  numerous  manuscripts 
collected  with  great  care  and  labor,  accompanied  with  notes,  a  life  of  the  au- 
thor, and  many  dissertations.  He  divided  the  work  into  Jive  volumes,  the  last 
of  which  was  to  contain  Huet's  Originiana,  with  notes,  emendations,  and  addi- 
tions,  and  also  dissertations  respecting  Origen.  The  two  first  volumes  were 
published  at  Paris,  1733,  fob  The  third  appeared  at  Paris  in  1740,  after  the 
editors  death,  which  occurred  in  1739.  There  remains  therefore  the  two  last 
volumes,  the  first  of  which  the  learned  author  is  said  to  have  left  nearly  com- 
plete.— Of  the  writings  of  Julius  Africanus  and  Dionysiiis  Alexandrianus,  only 
a  few  fragments  are  extant. — The  reputation  of  Ilippnhjtus  is  great ;  but  his 
history  is  involved  in  obscurity,  because  several  persons  of  this  name  became 
famous  among  Christians.  The  most  elaborate  account  of  the  man  is  given  by 
the  Benedictine  monks  in  the  work  they  have  commenced  publishing,  entitled 


142  Ceyxtury  III— Section  26. 

Histoire  Litternirc  dc  la  Fnnco,  tome  i.  p.  361.  The  meagre  fragments  that 
remain  of  tliis  great  man,  though  many  of  them  are  of  doubtful  genuineness, 
have  been  collected  in  two  thin  volumes,  by  Jo.  Alb.  Fabricius,  designed,  I 
suppose,  as  a  collection  for  others  to  improve. — The  few  remains  of  Gregory  of 
Neocnesarea,  including  his  Panegyric  on  Origcn,  his  preceptor,  which  is  the  best 
of  his  works,  and  a  Greek  biography  of  Gregory,  were  published  by  Gerh.  Voss^ 
Mayence,  1G04, 4to.  The  industry  ofVoss  deserves  commendation ;  but  Gregory 
needs  a  more  judicious  and  learned  editor,  who  would  inquire  more  sagnciously 
and  freely,  than  anyone  has  hitherto  done,  into  the  nature  and  certainty  of 
[p.  603.]  those  miracles,  by  which  Gregory  is  said  to  have  excelled  all  the 
learned  doctors  of  the  church  in  all  ages.  Great  suspicions  of  them  have  been 
awakened,  among  others  by  Anthony  Van  Dale,  in  the  preface  to  his  work  de 
Oracnlis.  These  suspicions  should  be  annihilated,  if  they  can  be  ;  and  if  they 
can  not,  I  wish  to  see  them  better  elucidated  and  confirmed,  so  that  the  true 
may  be  distinguished  from  the  false.  For  it  is  of  vast  importance  to  Christian- 
ity that  hoary  fables  should  be  exploded,  and  no  longer  give  nutriment  to  super- 
stition :  and  it  is  equally  important,  that  the  attestations  of  divine  power  and 
interposition,  actually  exhibited  in  the  early  ages,  should  be  placed  beyond  all 
doubt,  so  that  they  may  sustain  the  majesty  and  dignity  of  our  religion.  Some 
of  the  miracles  of  Gregory  bear  manifest  marks  of  spuriousness;  and  yet,  per- 
haps, there  vvas  something  true  at  the  bottom  of  them,  which  the  popular  cre- 
dulity, as  usual,  wrought  upon,  or  rather  perverted. 

(3)  Of  the  writings  of  Cyprian  there  are  extant,  first.  Epistles,  which  shed 
much  light  on  the  ecclesiastical  usnges  and  the  history  of  those  times ;  and, 
secondly,  various  Tracts,  in  which  he  treats  of  practical  duties,  sometimes  de- 
voutly and  eloquently,  and  sometimes  with  little  solidity  and  correctness.  All 
his  works  were  published,  near  the  close  of  the  last  century,  in  England,  by 
John  Fell,  bishop  of  Chester,  (Oxford,  1682,  fob),  and  with  great  dexterity  and 
care  ;  so  that  this  edition  vvas  deemed  worth  reprinting  in  Holland  and  Ger- 
many. Afterwards  Stephen  Baluze,  to  whom  other  branches  of  divine  and  hu- 
man learning  are  much  indebted,  spent  many  of  the  last  years  of  his  long  life 
in  laboriously  correcting  and  elucidating  the  works  of  Cyprian;  and  having  left 
his  undertaking  but  partly  accomplished,  his  associates,  the  Benedictine  monks 
of  St.  Maur,  added  some  dissertations,  and  published  the  whole,  Paris,  1726,  fol. 
But  this  edition  lacks,  not  only  the  dissertaiiones  Cyprianiccc  of  Henry  Dod- 
well,  which  are  very  erudite,  though  abounding  in  doubtful  opinions  and  con- 
jectures, but  also  the  Annales  Cijprianici  of  John  Pearson ;  so  that  it  does  not 
supercede  the  use  of  Fell's  edition.  After  these  labors  of  correction,  we  have 
the  text  of  Cyprian  sufTiciently  correct ;  and  transcribers  have  committed  fewer 
blunders  with  this  author  than  with  others;  but  it  may  be  justly  questioned, 
whether  Cyprian  has  been  adequately  elucidated  and  explained.  For  he  pre- 
sents us  with  many  passages,  which  no  one  can  fully  understand  and  compre- 
hend, unless  he  is  well  acquainted  with  that  antiquated  theology  which  differed 
so  much  from  the  theology  of  any  modern  sect;  yet  we  find  the  expounders  of 
Cyprian  ascribing  modern  views  to  him,  because  his  words  are  still  used  by  us 
to  express  our  sentiments. — Very  different  is  the  fact  with  Minucius  Felix,  whose 


Philosophising  Theologians. —  Origen,  143 

ideas  arc  sufficiently  cloar  and  intelligible,  but  his  lan^niago  is  sucli  as  to  create 
doubts  whether  we  have  hia  text  correct.  And  hence,  although  eminent  [p.  604.] 
men  have  labored  intensely  on  the  correction  of  his  text,  among  whom  the 
most  noted  were  John  Z>ai2S,  nn  Englishman,  and  James  Gronovivs,  who  lived 
within  our  recollection  ;  yet  much  still  remains  to  tax  the  ingenuity  of  critics 
ond  grammarians. — Of  Arnobius,  (who  is  eloquent,  but  often  very  obscure, 
from  the  use  of  uncommon  terms,  and  the  vicious  accumulation  of  figures  ai-.d 
verbal  ornaments,)  the  best  editor  is  Desiderius  Heraldus :  yet  he  is  not  ap- 
preciated by  the  authors  of  the  observations  and  emendations  in  the  latest  edi- 
tion of  Arnobius,  Lcyden,  1651,  4to.  The  friends  of  ancient  literature  will 
owe  .1  debt  of  gratitude  to  the  man  who  shall  resolve  to  apply  the  aids  of  inge- 
nuity and  a  knowledge  of  ancient  authors  to  the  elucidation  of  Arnobius,  the 
explanation  of  his  numerous  difficult  passages,  and  the  correction  of  his  many 
faults. 

§  XXYII.  Philosophisins:  Theologians.  Origen.  The  philoso- 
phising teachers  of  Christianity  frequently  resorted  to  what  they 
regarded  as  the  dictates  of  reason,  in  order  to  explain  and  eluci- 
date those  religious  doctrines  which  appeared  to  lack  precision 
and  clearness,  so  that  the  harmony  of  human  and  divine  wisdom 
might  be  manifest.  The  result  was,  that  the  ancient  simplicity, 
which  received  without  comment  whatever  was  divinely  inculcat- 
ed, became  less  esteemed,  the  subtilties  of  human  device  became 
mixed  up  with  the  divine  instructions,  and  contentions  and  dis- 
agreements arose  respecting  the  nature  of  certain  mysteries.  In 
the  western  regions,  indeed,  this  practice  of  commingling  human 
and  divine  views  made  slower  progress ;  and  the  Latin  theolo- 
gians of  this  century  were  still  sufficiently  cautious  in  their  ex- 
plications of  the  scriptural  doctrines,  except  perhaps  Arnobius, 
who  began  to  write  when  but  slightly  acquainted  with  the  prin- 
ciples of  religion,  and  treated  them  rhetorically  rather  than  phi- 
losophically. But  among  the  theologians  of  Asia  and  Africa, 
we  more  frequently  meet  with  such  as  ventured  to  explore  the 
internal  nature  and  the  recondite  grounds  of  scriptural  doctrines, 
either  for  the  gratification  of  curiosity,  or  for  the  purpose  of  confut- 
ing heretics  and  the  opposers  of  Christianity.  Among  these  the 
Alexandrian  doctors  of  Egypt  were  preeminent,  they  having,  in 
the  preceding  century,  conceded  to  philosophy  some  authority 
in  matters  of  religion.  At  the  head  of  these  doctors  stood  Ori- 
gcn^  the  master  of  the  school  at  Alexandria,  a  man  distinguished 
for  genius,  learning,  virtue  and  usefulness.  In  his  [p.  605.] 
Libi-i  de  jprmcipm,  still  extant  in  a  Latin  translation,  and  in  hia 


144  Century  III.— Section  27. 

Stromata,  wliich  are  lost,  lie  attempted  formally  to  demonstrate 
the  harmony  between  philosophy  and  Christianity ;  and  he  en- 
deavored to  reconcile  with  tlie  principles  of  reason  whatever  ap- 
peared strange  and  incredible  in  the  Christian  faith.  And  yet 
Origen  himself, — and  it  greatly  diminishes  his  fault, — treated 
this  slippery  and  hazardous  business  Avith  becoming  prudence 
and  modesty,  and  he  repeatedly  stated,  that  he  timidly  proposed 
conjectures,  rather  than  inculcated  and  decided  positively.  But 
his  disciples,  who  were  very  numerous,  followed  the  speculations 
of  their  teacher,  too  confidentl}-,  and  not  unfrequently  they  put 
forth  as  certainties,  what  he  had  only  stated  as  probabilities,  and 
which  he  requested  wise  men  to  examine  more  profoundly. (*) 

(1)  Of  Origen, — than  whom,  the  church  down  to  the  times  of  Constantine, 
contained  no  greater  man, — of  his  life,  hia  virtues  and  iiis  faults,  his  o})inion3 
nnd  his  errors,  enough  has  been  debated  and  written  by  Christians,  during 
almost  fourteen  centuries,  to  fill  out  a  volume  of  no  small  size.  Great  and 
excellent  men,  in  former  times,  stood  forth  as  his  patrons  and  advocates;  and 
they  continue  to  do  so  still.  But  men  equally  great  and  excellent,  to  this  day, 
have  been  h\H  adversaries.  And  in  fact,  both  to  assail  and  to  defend  him,  and 
with  arguments  of  great  apparent  force,  would  not  be  difficult  for  an  ingenious 
man,  wlio  would  assume  either  office.  Jn  the  life,  labors,  and  opinions  of  Origen, 
there  are  many  things  of  such  excellence  and  worth,  as  must  extort  admiration 
from  the  most  reluctant :  and  If  a  person  regard  these  things  only,  he  may 
easily  persuade  himself,  that  vyhatever  appeared  to  conflict  with  such  great  ex- 
cellencies must  have  been  only  slight  faults,  or  perhaps  were  the  fabrications 
and  slanders  of  enemies,  or  the  false  constructions  put  upon  allowable,  or  even 
upon  correct  opinions.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  among  his  opinions  so 
many  strangely  divergent  not  only  from  our  belief  but  also  from  the  plainest 
dictates  of  reason,  so  many  that  are  ridiculous  and  absurd,  especially  when  view- 
ed separately  and  apart  from  that  system  of  doctrine  to  which  he  was  attached, 
that  they  might  excite  our  disgust,  and  induce  the  belief  that  this  well  meaning 
man  was  lacking  In  common  sense  :  and  if  a  person  should  fix  his  attention 
upon  these  things  exclusively,  he  might  easily  be  led  to  believe,  that  whatever 
appears  great  or  illustrious  in  Origen  may  have  arisen  from  slight  or  accidental 
causes,  and  be  ascribable  to  the  instincts  of  nature,  or  to  his  copying  after 
others,  rather  than  to  the  deliberate  decisions  of  his  own  mind.  And  hence,  al- 
though the  long  controversies  respecting  Origen,  like  most  other  controversies 
among  men,  arose  in  no  small  degree  from  passion  and  prejudice,  yet  the  man 
[p.  606.]  himself,  who  was  so  many  times  both  attacked  and  defended,  was,  pecu- 
liarly, in  utrmnque  partem  disputahilis,  us  Seneca  expresses  it;  for  he  was  a 
compound  of  contrarities,  wise  and  unwise,  acute  and  stupid,  judicious  and  in- 
judicious, the  enemy  of  superstition  and  its  patron,  a  strenuous  defender  of 
Christianity  and  its  corrupter,  energetic  and  irresolute,  one  to  whom  the  Bible 
owes  much,  and  from  whom  it  has  suffered  much.  Of  the  great  number  of  facts  in 


Orujcn.  145 

regard  lo  Origcn,  which  have  long  been  before  the  public,  or  which  \wv^\\i  have 
been  brought  forward,  (for  man)-  have  never  been  noticed.)  I  shall,  for  the  ^sako 
of  brevity,  adduce  only  such  as  I  deem  necessary  to  account  for  the  great 
changes  he  produced  in  the  state  of  the  church.  For.  although  his  bishop 
expelled  him  from  the  chuix;h,  and  he  was  afterwards  assailed  hy  numerous 
public  and  private  condemnations,  yet  not  only  were  many  of  iiis  worst  opinion!; 
Buffi-red  to  go  unrebukcd,  but  his  practice  of  explaining  religions  truths  by 
means  of  philosophy,  and  of  turning  the  inspired  books  into  allegories,  was  very 
generally  approved  and  adopted  among  Christians.  Some  institutions,  like- 
wise, which  originated  from  his  doctrines,  took  deep  root  and  were  at  length 
regarded  as  sacred.  It  need  not  be  stated  that  at  all  times  there  have  been 
great  men,  and  men  of  distinguished  piety,  who  have  esteemed  Origen  very 
highly,  extolled  his  wrilings,  and  recommended  their  j)crusal  by  theologians, 
and  have  maintained  that  all  the  deci>ions  against  Origeti  were  unjust.  It 
would  therefore  be  no  mistake  to  say,  that,  as  Constantine  the  Great  imparted 
a  new  form  to  the  civil  state,  so  this  Egyptian  imparted  a  new  form  to  the 
theology  of  Christians. 

Among  the  wiiters  concerning  Origen,  his  opinions,  and  the  contests  they 
occasioned,  the  most  eminent  is  undoubtedly  Peter  Daniel  Ihiet;  whose  elabo- 
rate and  very  erudite  work,  in  three  books,  entitled  Origeniana,  is  the  copious 
fountain  from  which  all  the  more  recent  writers  concerning  Origen  have  drawn. 
Charles  de  la  Rue,  a  Benedictine,  the  rccent  editor  of  Origen's  works,  designed 
to  republish  Muet's  Origeniana,  with  additional  notes  and  observations;  but 
death  frustrated  the  purpose  of  that  learned  man.  Whoever  may  take  up  tho 
design  of  de  la  Rue,  and  pursue  it  judiciously  and  impartially,  will  find  the  un- 
dertaking to  be  great  and  the  materials  abundant.  For,  great  and  excellent  as 
the  work  of  Iluet  is  in  its  kind,  it  is  not  without  faults  and  defects,  [n  the 
first  place,  it  is  incomplete:  for  it  does  not  state  and  explain  all  the  peculiar 
doctrines  of  Origen,  but  only  those  which  were  pubUcIy  censured  and  con- 
demned. I  could  easily  show,  to  any  man  wishing  to  be  informed,  that  Origen 
held  many  otiier  opinions  equally  novel,  false  and  pernicious  with  those  charged 
upon  him  ;  which  however,  for  diverse  rcasons,  no  person  censured  or  condemned. 
Again,  although  no  person  can  judge  correctly  of  Origen's  theology,  [p.  607.J 
without  well  understanding  his  philosophy,  which  contained  the  grounds  of  hia 
lingular  opinions  on  divine  subjects,  y(!t  Huet  neglects  this  whole  subject, 
supposing  that  it  was  sufficient  to  say,  generally,  that  Origen  introduced  tho 
Academy  almost  entire  into  the  church.  The  work  of  this  very  learned  man 
is  also  badly  arranged.  For,  in  reviewing  those  doctrines  of  Origen  which 
brought  him  into  ill  repute,  he  does  not  follow  the  order  of  nature,  but  that  of 
the  schools:  nor  does  he  show  us  how  Origen's  opinions  stood  connected  with 
and  dependent  on  each  other,  but  he  arranges  them  all  under  general  heads 
without  regard  to  their  connexion.  This  mode  of  proceeding  was  quite  favora- 
ble to  his  main  purpose,  which  was  simply  to  vindicate  Origen;  but  it  h  em- 
barrassing to  those  who  wish  to  gain  a  correct  knowledge  and  a  just  estimate 
of  the  errors  of  that  great  man.  For  it  is  not  easy  to  judge  of  the  importance 
of  any  error,  without  tracing  it  to  its  source  and  seeing  its  connexion  with 

VOL,   U.  11 


146  Centunj  Ill-^Secthn  27. 

opinions  to  which  it  is  related;  because  many  sentiments,  considered  opart  and 
by  themselves,  appear  worthy  of  toleration  or  excuse,  but  if  considered  in  con- 
nexion with  their  origin  and  consequences,  they  assume  a  difterent  aspect,  and 
become  portentous.  Lastly,  throuirliout  his  work  lluct  labors  to  cxhil)it  Orit^^en 
lis  less  censurable  than  his  adversaries  made  him,  and  thus  assumes  the  ofhco 
of  a  patron  and  advocate,  rather  than  that  of  a  cautious  guarded  historian  and  a 
wise  judge. 

Among  the  arguments  by  which  Huet  thinks  he  can  justify  Origen,  though 
not  wholly,  some  are  of  considerable  force,  but  others  are  quite  weak  and  in- 
efficient. Of  the  former  character  is  the  man's  very  great  modesty ;  which 
also  his  early  defender,  Pamphilus,  and  among  the  moderns,  Haloix,  (in  his 
Origines  defensus.  Lib.  ii.  c.  2.)  have  urged  against  his  accusers.  And  it  is  true 
(hat,  in  many  places,  Origen  professes  not  to  decide  positively,  but  only  to  bring 
forward,  modestly  and  timidly,  probable  conjectures.  Thus  in  his  work  de  Prin- 
cipiis,  Lib.  i.  c.  6.  J  !•  P-  69,  when  entering  on  a  discussion  respecting  the  end 
or  consummation  of  the  world,  he  deprecates  all  offence,  by  saying;  Quie  quidern 
a  nobis  ctiam  cum  magno  metu  et  cautela  dicuntur,  discutientibus  magis  et 
pertractantibus,  quam  pro  certo  ac  defniito  statuentibus.  Indicatum  namque  a 
nobis  in  superioribus  est,  qua)  sint  de  quibus  manifesto  dogmate  terminandura 

eit. Nunc  autern  disputandi  specie  magis,  quam  definiendi,  pront  possu- 

Dius,  exercemur.  And  he  closes  the  chapter,  (p.  71,)  with  a  plain  acknowledg- 
ment of  his  ignorance  of  the  future  condition  of  our  bodies  after  the  destruction 
of  the  world.  Certius  tamen  qualiter  se  habitura  sit  res,  scit  solus  Dens  et  si 
qui  ejus  per  Christum  et  Spiritum  sanctum  amici  sunt.  In  the  passage  on  the  in- 
carnation of  Christ,  (Je  Principiis,  Lib.  ii.  c.  6.  {  2.  p.  90,)  he  says :  De  qiio  nos  non 
[p.  608.]  temeritate  r.liqua,  sed  quoniam  ordo  loci  deposcit  ea  magis,  quae  fidea 
nostra  continet,quam  qusB  humanse  rationisassertio  vindicare  solet,  quam  paucissi- 
mis  proferemus,  suspiciones  potius  iioslra s  qnnm  manifestas  aliquas  affirmationes 
in  medium  proferentes.  And,  lest  any  should  misunderstand  him,  he  closes  tho 
whole  discussion  with  this  sentence,  (p.  92.) :  Haec  interim  nobis  ad  prrcsena 
de  rebus  tarn  difficilibus  disputantibus,  id  est,  de  iiTcarnatione  ct  de  deitate  Christi 
occurrcre  potuerunt.  Si  quis  sane  melius  aliquid  poterit  invenire  et  evidentio- 
ribus  de  Scripturis  Sanctis  assertionibus  confirmare  quae  dicit,  ilia  potius  q«ara 
haec  recipiantur.  Similar  protestations  occur  everywhere  in  his  work  de  Prhi' 
cipii!^,  and  in  his  other  writings.  Somolimes  he  brings  forward  two  or  threo 
explications  of  the  same  thing,  and  leaves  it  optional  with  his  readers  to  select 
Buy  one  of  them,  or  to  reject  the  whole.  De  Princip.  Lib.  ii.  c.  3.  \  6.  p.  83: 
His  igitur  tribus  oi)inionibus  de  fine  omnium  et  de  summa  beatitudine  prout 
eentirc  potuimus  adumbratis,  unusquisque  legentium  apud  semetipsum  diligen- 

lius  et  scrupulosius  judicet  si  potest  aliqua  harum  probari  vel   eligi. To 

this  his  commendable  modesty,  may  be  added  his  very  great  inconstancy  in  tho 
explication  of  religious  doctrines.  For  he  does  not  always  and  everywhere 
advance  the  same  sentiments,  but,  on  the  gravest  subjects,  he  exhibits  different 
views  at  different  times  and  in  different  places:  whence  it  is  manifest,  that  the 
man  changed  his  own  views,  and  that  he  did  not  wish  to  })rescribe  laws  for  hu- 
man thought.    For  example,  if  wo  compare  the  different  statements  he  makea 


OrlgeiCs    Character.  I47 

rpspoctinjT  tlie  divine  Trinity,  or  respecting  Christ,  and  tlic  Holy  Spirit,  we  must 
be  persuaded  tliat  to  liim,  if  to  any  one,  the  lines  of  Horace  arc  applicable, 
(Epistles,  Lib.  i.  ep.  1.) 

Quo  loiicam  vultus  miitantcm  Protoa  nodo? 
Quod  petilt,  spernit,  rcpctil  quod  nuper  oinisit. 
Diruit.  aniiflcat,  mutat  quudrata  rotuudis. 
For,  the  Sabellians,  the  Arians,  the  Nicenists,  and  others,  can  all  very  plausibly 
lay  claim  to  him.  The  cause  of  this  modesty  and  instability,  1  will  state  pre- 
sently. But  those  who  wish  correctly  to  understand  what  sort  of  a  man  Orii^en 
was  should  remember,  that  he  was  not  always  and  uniformly  controlled  by 
modesty  and  instability.  His  timidity  and  changeableness  are  apparent,  when 
lie  offers  philosophical  explanalions  of  those  Christian  docti'ines  which  theologi- 
nns  call  revealed  truths,  that  is,  of  the  doctrines  which  we  learn  exclusively 
from  the  Bible,  such  as  tlie  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ,  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  of  the  resurrection  of  our  bodies.  For 
while  he  assumes  it  as  certain,  that  even  these  doctrines  are  accordant  with  tho 
teachings  of  re:ison,  or  with  the  philosophy  which  is  agreeable  to  reason,  and 
that  the  former  may  be  legitimately  deduced  from  the  latter;  yet  he  does  not 
pretend  that  he  is  one  who  can  show  infallibly  how  they  stand  connected, 
although  he  has  no  doubts  that  others,  more  intelligent  than  he,  may  be  able 
to  do  it.  But  he  is  much  more  bold  and  confident,  when  expound-  [p.  609.] 
ing  the  doctrines  which  lie  within  the  sphere  of  human  knowledge,  or  the 
doctrines  of  natural  religion,  such  as  those  concerning  God,  the  world,  the  soul, 
&c.  For  these  he  thinks  should  be  e.xplained, — and  he  himself  confidently  e.v- 
plains  them,  in  accordance  with  the  precepts  of  that  philosophy  which  he 
embraced  as  true;  and  he  sometimes  ridiculed  those  who  choose  to  hold  these 
doctrines,  simply,  and  according  to  the  literal  statement  of  the  Scriptures, 
rather  than  to  allow  reason  to  ex])lain  and  modify  them.  Take  for  example, 
what  he  says  in  the  second  book  of  his  Principia,  respecting  the  human  soul  of 
Christ,  and  the  union  of  the  divine  with  the  human  nature  in  our  Savior.  On 
this  subject,  having  assumed  that  the  soul  of  Christ  was  of  the  same  nature 
witli  ours,  he  unhesitatingly  applies  to  Christ's  soul  whatever  he  had  learned 
respecting  tlie  human  soul  in  the  school  of  his  master,  Ammonius;  and  thus 
he  produced  a  doctrine  pregnant  with  dangerous  consequences,  and  one  alto- 
gether unknown  in  the  Scriptures.  Still  it  must  be  admitted,  that  although  tho 
modesty  and  inconstancy  of  Origen  did  not  extend  so  far  as  his  patrons  and 
fidvoeates  wish  us  to  believe,  yet  they  do  serve  to  vindicate  him  in  a  degree. — 
And  of  similar  tendency  is,  what  Jerome  testifies  of  him,  (Epist.  Ixv.  c.  4.)  that 
he  wrote  to  Fabian,  the  Roman  bishop,  that  his  friend  Ambrose  had  published 
some  of  his  writings  which  he  did  not  wish  to  have  go  abroad.  And  yet,  in 
the  works  which  he  undoubtedly  wished  to  see  circulated  unlimitedly,  there  arc 

passages  enough  that  may  be  censured, If  now,  over  and  above  these  ex- 

tenuation^j,  we  look  at  the  apologies  for  Origen  by  Pamphilus,  Haloix,  Miran- 
dula,  Huet,  and  his  many  other  advocates,  we  shall  find  little  that  can  satisfy  a 
sagacious  and  impartial  mind.  For  example,  it  is  true,  as  his  friends  assert,  that 
the  accusers  of  Origen  dis.agreo  among  themselves,  and  charge  him  \vilh  coiv 


148  Century  III.— Section  27. 

trary  errors;  but  llic  inference  they  would  draw,  tliat  therefore  Origen  wns  in- 
nocent jind  was  borne  down  by  falsi;  accusations,  will  not  follow.  For  they 
themselves  admit,  that  Ori^aMi  was  not  uniform  in  ids  belief,  and  that  he  uttered 
different  sentiments  at  different  times,  accordinnr  to  the  occasions,  ihe  persons 
he  was  combaltiug",  and  the  particular  state  of  i)is  mind.  And  hence,  he  is  not 
unfrequently  at  variance  with  himself,  and  the  opinion  he  advanced  at  one  time, 
he  afterwards  exchanged  for  another  altogether  different.  And  it  may  be  added, 
that  Origen  is  not  the  same  man  when  calmly  seated  in  the  teacher's  chair,  as 
he  is  when,  with  heated  feeling-^  he  comes  forth  as  n  disputant  and  encounters 
.in  antagonist.  As  a  teacher,  he  writes  soberly,  and  as  he  really  thinks;  but 
when  he  is  disputing,  he  does  not  state  just  what  he  believes  or  regards  as  trne» 
but  frequently  such  things,  true  or  f;dse,  as  are  suited  to  embarrass  his  adver- 
sary. It  would  be  easy  to  show,  that  he  considered  disputes  as  to  be  settled  as 
wars  are,  or  that  it  was  not  important,  whether  his  antagonist  was  prostrated  by 
guile  and  subtilty  or  by  valor  in  combat.  And  hence,  the  positions  he  assumes 
[p.  610.]  when  confronting  Celsus,  or  the  Jews,  or  the  heretics,  are  entirely  dif- 
ferent from  those  he  lays  down  when  calmly  expounding  Christian  truth  as  a 
teacher. — No  more  account  do  I  make  of  the  argument,  with  which  nearly  all 
the  patrons  of  Origen  surfeit  us,  that  many  other  doctors  of  the  ancient  church 
taught  just  as  he  did  on  many  points  of  theology.  For,  not  to  insist  on  the 
principle  that  the  multitude  of  those  who  embrace  an  error  does  not  make  it 
true,  it  was  the  fact,  that  most  of  those  who  agreed  with  Origen,  lived  after 
him,  and  they  appear  to  have  received  their  opinions  from  him,  as  being  the 
common  teacher  of  the  church.  Besides,  these  other  doctors  who  tench  and 
maintain  the  same  doctrines  with  Origen,  understood  those  doctrines  differently 
from  what  he  did,  and  they  were  led  in  a  very  different  manner  into  the  belief 

of  them. We  will  now  take  a  nearer  view  of  the  man  under  consideration. 

AwA.,  first.,  we  will  speak  of  the  man  liimself;  ihen^  of  his  philosophy;  and 
lastly,  of  his  theology,  and  his  method  of  explaining  religious  subjects. 

In  the  first  place,  Origen  himself,  if  judged  by  his  moral  worth,  was  unques- 
tionably a  great  and  estimable  man,  and  one  who  has  had  ^q\w  equals  in  any  age. 
Nor  would  it  divest  him  of  this  praise,  if  it  were  perfectly  true,  (as  stated  by 
Epiphanius,  Hajres.  Ixiv.  e.  2.)  that  at  Alexandria  he  was  once  brought  to 
the  alternative  of  either  sacrificing  to  the  gods,  or  yielding  his  body  to  be 
polluted  by  an  Ethiopian;  and  that  to  avoid  the  infamy,  he  promised  to  offer 
sacrifice;  yet  he  did  not  do  so,  for  he  retracted  his  promise,  and  the  incenso 
placed  in  his  hands  was  shaken  into  the  (ire  by  the  bystanders.  Men  of  high 
character  have  maintained,  and  with  pretty  strong  arguments,  that  this  story 
should  be  classed  among  slanderous  fables.  But,  suppose  it  true,  and  it  will 
only  prove  that  Origen,  being  (suddenly  arrested,  and  thrown  off  his  guard, 
hastily  concluded  that  he  should  sin  less  by  sacrificing  to  the  gods,  thau  by 
yielding  his  body  to  be  stained  with  eternal  infamy  by  the  Ethiopian ;  but  that 
he  presently  recovered  himself,  and  instantly  reversed  his  determination.  In 
this,  I  think,  no  one  can  find  any  great  and  wilful  fault.  For  who  among  the 
holiest  of  mortals  is  so  uniformly  wise,  that,  in  the  most  trying  circumstancest 
he  consents  to  no  divergence  from  the  strictest  rule  of  duty  1    Yet,  except  this 


Orlgens  Character.  149 

one  tliingf,  Origen  posses-icd  every  excellence  that  can  ndorn  the  Christian 
character;  uncommon  piety,  from  his  very  childhood;  astonishinn-  devotedness 
to  th;it  most  holy  rcli«;ion  which  he  professed;  unequalled  persevt'rance  in 
labors  and  toils  for  the  advancement  of  the  Christian  cause  ;  untiring  zeal  for  tho 
cluirch,  and  for  the  extension  of  Christianity  ;  an  elevation  of  soul  uhic-h  phiced 
him  above  all  ordinary  desires  or  fears;  a  most  permanent  contempt  of  wealth, 
honors,  pleasures,and  of  death  itself ;  the  purest  trust  in  the  Lord  Jesns,  [p.  611.] 
for  whose  sake,  when  he  was  old  and  oppressed  with  ills  of  every  kind,  he  patient- 
ly and  perseveringly  endured  the  severest  suflerings.  It  is  not  strange,  therefore, 
tliat  he  was  held  in  so  high  estimation,  both  while  he  lived  and  after  death. 
Certainly  if  any  man  deserves  to  stand  first  in  the  catalogue  of  saints  and  mar- 
tyrs, and  to  be  aiuuially  held  up  as  an  example  to  Christians,  this  is  the  man: 
for,  except  the  apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  and  their  companions,  I  know  of  no 
one,  among  all  those  enrolled  and  honored  as  saints,  who  excelled  him  in  holi- 
ness and  virtue.  lie  was  censured  indeed,  by  Demetrius  and  others,  for  having 
emasculated  himself:  and  I  will  not  acquit  him  of  all  fault  in  that  matter. 
But  the  fault  itself  is  such  as  demonstrates  the  strength  of  his  resolution,  and 
his  devotcdness  to  religion,  nor  could  it  be  committed  by  an  ordinary  man. 

But  Origen  does  not  appear  equally  great,  when  estimated  by  his  native 
powers.  Undoubtedly  he  possessed  genius,  had  a  very  happy  memory,  great 
thirst  for  knowledge,  a  very  fertile  imagination,  and  uncommon  elocjuence  and 
powers  of  teaching;  and  these  caused  both  Christians  and  pagans  to  listen  to 
him,  with  intense  interest,  when  1)6  taught  philosophy  and  other  divine  and  hu- 
man sciences  in  the  Christian  school  of  Alexandria.  But  those  who  are  capable 
of  judging,  and  are  familiar  with  his  writings,  will  not  rank  iiim  among  ge- 
niuses of  the  highest  order.  Certainly  he  was  not  one  who,  as  the  saying  is, 
could  swim  without  his  board;  i.  e.  not  one  who,  by  the  inherent  powers  of 
his  own  mind,  could  examine  truth  in  its  fundamental  principles,  and  discover 
and  judge  what  is  accordant  with  those  principles,  and  what  is  not.  He  was 
6uch  a  philosopher  as  many  in  this  and  every  age,  who  can  treasure  up  in  their 
memory  and  well  understand  the  systems  of  doctrine  inculcated  by  their  teach- 
ers, and  can  bring  out  their  acquired  knowledge,  pertinently,  when  questions 
and  occasions  demand  it ;  and  if  any  obstruction  is  thrown  in  their  path,  they 
can  swerve  a  little  this  way  or  that,  yet  always  are  sure  that  the  truth  lies 
wholly  within  the  sphere  of  their  received  instructions.  For  it  is  very  certain 
that  Origen  never  travels,  in  thought  or  argument,  beyond  the  bounds  of  that 
knowledge  which  he  received  in  early  life  from  his  teachers;  he  never  philoso- 
phises freely,  and  in  the  exercise  of  his  own  ingenuity,  but  regards  the  system 
he  imbibed  from  Ammonius  as  the  only  rational  and  sound  philosophy.  And 
hence,  so  long  as  this  philosophy,  which  was  his  sole  reliance,  supplies  suitable 
matter  for  his  discussions  ar.d  compositions,  he  appears  a  valuable  writer,  and 
treats  his  subjects  with  acuteness  and  ingenuity  ;  but  when  destitute  of  such  aid, 
as  is  frequently  the  case,  he  is  like  a  man  travelling  in  a  foreign  country,  who 
does  understand  how  the  roads  run.  This  is  no  where  more  apparent  than  in  his 
book  against  Celsus,  the  assailant  of  Christianity.  In  that  work,  so  long  as  [p.6r2] 
he  can  draw  from  his  philosophy,  he  appears  foreeable  and  methodical ;  but  when 


150  Century  Ill.—Scction  27. 


this  resource  fails  him,  Ills  arguments  are  weak,  .nnd  sometimes  fiilile.  These 
remarks  explain,  ichij  the  man,  wiio  on  many  topics  is  a  wij-'c  and  acute  rea- 
boner,  is  on  others  jiuerile.  Unassisted,  he  rarely  produces  anything  of  much 
importance;  but  when  sustained  hy  his  masti-r,  or  by  ihe  instructions  of  the 
Bible,  he  appears  very  respectable.  The  learning  of  Origen,  for  the  age  in 
which  he  lived,  was  abundant  and  excellent.  He  had  read  immensely,  and  was 
Acquainted  with  the  doctrines  of  all  sects,  both  of  philosophers  and  Christians. 
He  had  acquired  from  the  Greeks  their  polite  learning ;  and  he  was  not  igno- 
Fiint  of  mathematics.  In  the  philosophical  department,  dialectics,  physic,  astro- 
nomy, &c.,  he  was  well  versed,  in  the  way  before  stated,  namely,  whatever  he 
had  received  from  the  lips  of  teachers  or  had  learned  from  books,  he  retained 
well  in  memory,  and  had  at  command.  Jn  Hebrew  learning  he  had  some 
knowledge.  In  short,  he  had  travelled  through  the  wiu)le  encyclopajdia  of  liu- 
man  knowledge  in  that  age,  and  he  was  justly  accounted  a  universal  scholar, 
both  by  the  Christians  and  by  other  people. 

We  now  proceed  to  his  philosophy.  Besides  CZemen.s  iiZeo;.  rector  of  the 
Christian  school  at  Alexandria,  a  follower  of  the  eclectic  mode  of  pliilosophiz- 
ing,  he  had  for  his  preceptor  Ammonius  Saccas,  the  celebrated  founder  of  the 
new  Platonic  school,  who,  while  he  sought  to  bring  all  sects  of  philosophers  to 
agreement,  adopted  the  principle  that  the  philoso})hers  differed  only  on  trivial 
points,  and  were  agreed  in  matters  of  importance  to  virtue  and  happiness;  and 
consequently,  that  there  is  but  one  ijhUosophy,  though  under  different  forms,  or 
differently  stated.  Now  that  philosophy,  which  Origen  regarded  as  true,  and  as 
recognized  by  all  the  philosophers,  was  the  Ammonian  or  the  new  Platonic, 
though  slightly  modified,  that  it  might  not  conflict  with  Christian  principles, 
with  which  it  stood  in  the  closest  alliance.  Of  this  philosophy  I  will  give  a 
brief  summary,  which  it  is  easy  to  deduce  from  the  writings  of  Origen  :  to  state 
it  fully,  would  be  needless. 

All  things  that  exist,  whether  corporeal  or  void  of  gross  matter,  emanated 
eternally  from  God,  the  source  of  all  things.  This  first  principle  of  the  new 
Platonic  school,  derived  from  Egyptian  wisdom,  as  we  have  elsewhere 
shown,  was  the  basis  or  foundation  of  Origen's  philosophy.  But  the  Christian 
scriptures  reject  this  doctrine,  taken  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Platonists  under- 
stood it.  For  the  Platonists  believed  the  world  to  be  without  beginning,  and 
without  end,  or  to  have  flowed  forth  from  God  eternally,  and  to  be  destined  to 
continue  for  ever.  The  Christian's  Bible,  on  the  contrary,  clearly  teaches  that 
the  world  was  created  at  a  certain  time,  and  that  at  a  certain  time  it  will  perish. 
[p.  613.]  Origen  therefore  thought  it  necessary  to  modify  this  doctrine,  and 
adjust  it  to  the  instructions  of  Christianity  ;  and  so  he  introduced  the  idea  of  a 
perpetual  succession  or  propagation  of  worlds.  Innumerable  worlds  similar 
to  this,  existed  and  perished,  before  the  present  world  was  produced  ;  and  after 
this  world  shall  end,  innumerable  otiiers  will  exist  in  endless  succession.  (See 
de  Principiis,  lib.  iii.  c.  5.  Opp.  toin.  i.  p.  149.)  Now  admitting  this  doctrine,  a 
person  may  believe  the  declarations  of  the  Scriptures  respecting  (he  origin  and 
the  end  of  this  world,  and  at  the  same  time  hold  the  Platonic  dogma  of  the 
eternal  efflux  of  the  world  from  God,  and  its  eternal  duration.     Yet  this  theory 


Orirjens  Phihsophj.  151 

of  an   cfernnl   seiios  of  worlds,  successively  sprinn^ing  up  and  filling  to  ruin, 
thoii«;fli  not  ivqnirin<j:  any  great  powers  of  mind  for  its  invenlion,  did  not  ori^Mn- 
ate  with  Oriijen.     lie  sinijily  adcpted  it  from  the  Stoics  and  others,  in  conipli- 
nnce  with  the  precept  of  the  eclectic  philosophy,  that  the  truth  is  to  be  feathered 
from  all  sects. — We  proceed;   Souls,  like  all  other  finite  thinjrs,  cman«ted  from 
tlie  divine  nature,  long-  before  the  material  world  was  formed  ;  and  they  wero 
originally  all  equal  in  their   nature,  in  moral  excellence,  and  in  rank  ;  and  all 
therefore,  with  no  exception,  had  in  them  some  combination  or  admixture  of 
corporeal  substance.     For  Origen  uniformly  inculcates,  that  only  the  divine  Be- 
ing is  altogether  free  fronu-orporeal matter  and  of  a  simple  nature;  that  all  the 
other  beings  endowed  with  reason,  or  all  finite  spirits,  are  enclosed  in  a  sort  of 
subtile  and  etherial  vehicles,  or  a  drapery  of  a  corporeal  nature.  All  souls  more- 
over, possess  free  will,  and  equal  power  to  do  good  or  to  do  ill,  or  are  able 
freely  to  do  the  one  or  the  other.     And  this  power  or  freedom  of  choice,  is  so 
inherent  in  them,  that  it  can  never  become  extinct  and  lost.     Origcn,  (de  Prin- 
cij)p.  lib.  ii.  c.   8.   sec.  2.  p.  94.)  defines  a  soul  to  be  subsfantiam  ratumahiUter 
sensibikm  et  mcbilem:  which  definition  may  be  understood  from  what  has  been 
said.     On  this  freedom  of  volilion,  which  is  a  property  of  nil  souls  without  ex- 
ception, depend  all  the  changes  in  human  affairs  whether  past  or  future,  all  the 
changes  in  the  universe,  all  the  distinctions  and  differences  among  men  and 
spirits,  all  the  variations  in  the  divine  decrees  and    proceedings.     For   some 
souls,  while  in  their  celestial  state,  before  this  world  was  created,  used  their  free 
will  wisely  and   properly ;  but  others  abused  it,  in  differejit  ways,  some  mora 
grievously,  and  others  more  lightly.     And  therefore  divine  justice  demanded, 
that  the  souls  which  had  misused  their  liberty  should  undergo  some   punish- 
ment.    And  hence  came  the  present  world,  and  the  race  of  men.    For  God  de- 
creed, that  the  sinning  souls  sliould  be  clothed  in  grosser  bodies,  so  that  they 
might  sufiTer  in  them  the  penalties  of  their  temerity.     And  as  there  was  o-reat 
diversity  in  the   offences  committed  by  them,  it  became  necessarv  for  God  to 
create  bodies  of  different  kir.ds  or  natures,  so  that  he  might  assign  to  each  a 
body  suited  to  the  magnitude  and  enormity  of  the  sins  which  defiled  it.  [p.  614.] 
Some  souls  were  therefore  lodged  in  those  splendid  bodies,  the  sun,  the  moon, 
and  the  stars:  for  it  was  the  belief  of  Origen,  that  all  the  stars    have  souls. 
Others  were  doomed  to   inhabit    human  bodies,   whicli  are  vastly  inferior  in 
strength,  healthiness,  beauty,  <l-c.,  btcnuselhe  souls  to  be  imprisoned  in  them 
had  in  many  ways  deviated  froni  the  paih  of  rectitude  and  virtue,  and  therefore 
deserved  various   kinds  of  chastisement  for  their  ill  deserts.     Others,  the  de- 
mons for  example,   were  attached  to  bodies  more  teiuious  indeed  than   ours, 
but  extremely  ugly,  and  such  as  vehemently  excite  the  soul  to  evil.     Hy  the 
wisdom  of  the  supreme  Being,  all  these  bodies  are  skilfully  lo(;ated,  and  most 
filly  r.rranged,  so  as  to  pi'oduce  the  admirable  fibric  of  the  created  world.     But 
let  us  hear  Origen    explain    his  own   views;  (de  Privcijiii^,  lil'.  ii.  c.  9.  sec.  6, 
p  99.)     Deus  ffiquales  creavit  omnes  ac   similes,  quos  creavit,  quijpe  (pium 
nulla  ei  caussa  varietafis  ac  diversitatis  existeret.     Verurn  qiioniam  raliouabilca 
ipsrc  creatur;c  -  -  arbitrii  ficultale  donatio  sunt :  lihertas  ununuiiiem(]ue  volun- 
tatis suce  vel  ud  profectum  per  imilationem  Dei  provocavit,  vcl  ad  defect uin  per 


152  Century  III— Section  27. 

negligentiam  traxit.  Et  hsec  ex8titit  caussa  diversitatis  inter  lationaLiles  crea- 
turns,  non  ex  conditoris  voluntate  vel  judicio  originem  trahens,  sod  propria)  li- 
bertatis  arbitrio.  Dens  vero  cui  jam  creaturam  suain  pro  meritodispensarejiis- 
tum  vjdebatur,  diversitatcs  montiiiin  in  iinius  mundi  eonsonantiam  traxit,  quo 
velut  unani  domum,  in  qua  inosse  dubcrent  non  solum  vasa  aurea  et  argentea, 
Ked  et  lignea  et  fictilia,  ex  istis  diversis  vasis  vel  aniniis  vel  mentibus  oniaret. 
Et  has  caussas  mundus  iste  suae  diversitatia  accepit,  dum  unumquemque  divina 
providentia  pro  varietate  motuum  suorum  vel  animorum  propositique  dispensat. 
And,  after  a  few  sentences,  he  thus  recapitulates  the  whole  statement:  (sec.  8. 
p.  100.)  Unumquodque  vas  (i.  e.  anima)  secundum  mensuram  puritatis  suae 
aut  impuritatis  locum,  vel  regionera,  vel  eonditionem  nascendi  vel  explendi 
aliquid  in  hoc  mundo  accepit:  qua3  omnia  Deus  usque  ad  minimum  vh-tute 
sapientia3  suae  providens  ac  dignoscens,  moderamine  jiulicii  sui  sequissima  retri- 
butione  univcrsa  disponit,  quatenus  unicuique  pro  merito  vel  succurri  vel  con- 
sul! deberet.  Oiigen  explains  and  inculcates  this  opnion  often  and  largely; 
and  not  without  reason:  for  he  supposed  it  to  be  of  vast  importance,  for  the 
vindication  of  the  divine  wisdom  and  justice,  and  that  it  accounts  for  the  end- 
less diversities  which  exist  among  men  and  spirits.  The  souls,  distributed 
through  so  many  and  such  diversified  bodies,  do  not  change  their  essential 
nature;  and  of  course  they  retain  their  native  freedom  of  volition.  And 
although  they  can  not  use  their  free  will  for  good  with  the  same  success,  as 
they  did  in  their  celestial  state  when  disconnected  with  gross  matter,  yet  they 
[p.  615.]  are  not  by  any  means  so  oppressed  and  fettered  by  their  bodies  as  to 
be  unable,  if  they  would  but  exert  their  rational  powers,  to  improve  slowly 
their  condition,  and  gradually  to  recover  their  former  beauty.  Therefore  such 
souls  as  exert  their  native  powers,  and  by  contemplation  and  other  means  sever 
themselves  from  the  imagination  and  senses  and  from  the  concupiscence  gene- 
rated by  the  body,  are  thereby  gradually  purified;  and,  on  becoming  released 
from  their  bodies,  they  are  again  elevated  to  their  former  state.  Yet  they  do 
not  recover  their  primitive  felicity,  at  once  and  in  a  moment,  but  they  pass,  by 
a  slow  process,  through  various  changes  up  to  God.  And  the  souls  which  ne- 
glect this  duty,  will  either  migrate  into  other  bodies,  or  will  be  subjected  to 
some  harsher  modes  of  purgation,  until  they  shall  repent  and  begin  to  exert 
their  liberty  for  good.  And  when  all  souls  shall  have  returned  to  their  primi- 
tive  state  and  to  God,  then  this  material  world  will  be  dissolved.  But  because, 
from  their  very  nature,  souls  can  never  lose  their  Ucc  will,  nor,  consequently, 
(he  power  of  abusing  their  freedom, the  very  souls  that  have  overcome  the  evils 
of  this  life,  as  well  as  others,  may  and  will  aga!n  depart  from  duty  and  from  God, 
and  then  again  deserve  punishment.  And  whenever  their  number  shall  be 
sufficiently  large,  God  must  again  create  bodies,  and  out  of  them  frame  a  new 
world  in  which  he  can  punish  the  violators  of  his  eternal  law,  each  according 
to  his  merits  and  the  magnitude  of  his  otlence.  And  of  this  successive  rise  or 
worlds,  there  will  be  no  end  ;  because  the  liberty  of  the  will,  which  naturally 
belongs  to  all  souls,  prevents  their  ever  arriving  at  an  unchangeable  constancy 
in  good.  To  judge  correctly  of  iho  theology,  whieh  Origen  based  on  this  phi- 
losophy, we  must  keep  in  view  his  two  preceptors,  Clement,  of  Alexandria,  and 


Origens  regard  for  P/nhsopIn/.  153 

Ammnnius.  The  former  of  these,  as  we  have  already  shown,  held  philosopiiy 
in  very  high  estimation;  and  he  maintained  that  philosophy  correctly  under- 
stood, and  freed  from  the  false  notions  of  the  sects,  does  not  disagree  with  the 
religion  of  Christ.  The  latter,  Ammonins,  not  only  sought  to  reconcile  the 
Christian  religion  with  the  precepts  of  his  philosopiiy,  but  he  also  believed,  as 
already  sliown,  that  Christianity  could  be  reconciled  with  the  Pagan  religions, 
provided  they  were  rightly  explained  and  were  divested  of  the  fables  and  error 
brouglit  into  them  by  the  vulgar  and  by  the  priests.  Now  Origen,  treading  in 
the  footsteps  of  his  teachers,  regarded  philosophy  as  a  precious  gift  of  God  ; 
and  he  supposed  that  the  wisdom  proclaimed  by  Christ,  although  more  sublime 
and  perfect  than  philosophy,  was  nevertheless  based  upon  it;  and  that  all 
Christian  doctrines  might  be  explained  and  vindicated  by  philosophy.  Indeed, 
it  is  not  to  be  concealed,  that  he  coincided  with  Ammonius  in  the  belief  that 
the  popular  religions,  if  their  fables  and  superstition  were  excluded,  might  in 
a  measure  be  combined  with  Christianity.  In  order  to  reconcile  the  worship 
of  one  God,  which  Christianity  requires,  witli  paying  homage  to  many  gods, 
Ammonius  assumed,  that  God  had  committed  the  administration  and  [p.  616.] 
government  of  the  various  parts  of  the  universe  to  demons  of  great  power  and 
virtue;  and  that  it  was  reasonable  and  proper  that  some  honor  and  public  reve- 
rence be  paid  to  these  powerful  ministers  of  the  divine  Providence :  because 
God,  the  supreme  Lord,  is  honored  in  the  person  of  his  friends ;  just  as  the 
respect  paid  to  the  vicegerents  and  envoys  of  earthly  kings  and  princes,  re- 
dounds to  the  honor  of  the  kings  and  princes  whom  they  represent.  More- 
©ver,  these  legates  and  ministers  of  God  have  the  power  of  conferring  benefits 
on  men,  such  as  health,  a  salubrious  atmosphere,  fruitful  seasons,  and  all  the 
comforts  of  life ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  they  have  power  in  various  ways  to 
harm  those  who  desjiise  them.  And  hence,  the  interests  of  mankind  require, 
that  some  worship  should  be  paid  to  them;  and  the  people  of  the  primitive 
ages  were  divinely  instructed  to  do  this;  but,  in  process  of  time,  a  depraved 
human  belief  converted  these  ministers  of  God  into  imaginary  deities,  and  in- 
troduced numerous  errors  and  corrupt  rites,  and  even  caused  the  worship  of  the 
supreme  Being  to  become  almost  extinct  and  lost.  Now  if  these  faults  were 
corrected,  and  the  worship  of  the  demons  restored  to  its  pristine  t-implicity, 
there  would  be  nothing  to  forbid  men's  paying  supreme  homage  to  the  one  su- 
preme God,  and  at  the  same  time,  yielding  reverence  to  the  ministers  of  God, 
in  the  ancient  manner,  in  certain  places,  at  proj)er  times,  and  with  suitable 
rites.  And  to  these  views,  for  substance,  Origen  gave  assent.  He  believed, 
that  God  has  committed  the  care  and  government  of  the  several  provinces  of 
his  great  empire,  the  universe,  to  angels  of  different  orders,  who  are  the  guar- 
dians and  protectors  not  only  of  nations,  but  of  individual  men,  and  also  of  ani- 
mals, the  fruits  of  the  earth,  &c.  Whether  prayers  and  worsliip  i-hould  bo  of- 
fered to  these  angels,  he  does  not  explicitly  state,  in  any  of  his  works  that  have 
reached  us:  and  yet,  in  a  few  passages,  he  does  not  disguise  the  fict  that  ho 
leaned  much  towards  an  opinion  but  little  diverse  from  that  of  Amnioniua 
above  stated,  respecting  the  union  of  the  worship  of  one  God  wiih  the  worship 
of  demons.     See  liuet's  Origeniana,  Lib.  ii.  p.  89. 


154  Century  IIL—Section  27. 

Orig-cn's  Idea  of  the  relation  and  connexion  between  Christianity  :'nd  })hilo- 
eophy,  may  be  learned  distinctly  from  two  passages  in  his  writings  still  presrrv- 
•cd.  The  first  passnge  is  in  his  Phi/ccalia,  taken  from  his  epi>tle  to  Gre/^ory 
Tiiaumaturgus,  bi>hop  of  Neocassarea,  and  exhibited  in  the  edition  of  hiswoiks 
by  Charles  de  la  Rue,  torn,  i,  p.  30.  Here  Origen  asserts,  that  philosopiiy  is  as 
important  to  Christian  theology,  as  geometry,  mubic,  gr.imniar,  rhetoric  and  as- 
tronomy are  to  philosophy:  'OTt^  pari  fiXorojictv  naif  is  -nf^l  yioyf-^i'^pini  -  -  -  wf 
CVpffi^-osv    fi\oTofiay  ToDd"'  vjUiii  cfr<j},uiv  cTg  vipl  dwy^s  9i\o^opiai  nidi    ^pii^T lavi^uoy. 

This,  lie  says,  in  reference  to  the  true  philosophy,  or  philosophy  purified  from 
the  corrnptions  and  figments  of  the  sects  :  and  such  he  believed  to  be  the  philo- 
eophy  which  he  had  learned  from  Ammonius,  after  correcting  it  in  a  few  point3 
[p.  617.]  to  make  it  harmonize  with  Christianity,  'i  herefore,  as  astroiiomy, 
geometry,  music,  and  the  other  sciences  are  useful  to  a  philosopher  for  siiarpen- 
ing  his  acumen,  strengthening  his  reasoning  powers,  and  enabling  him  to  com- 
prehend and  arrange  more  perfectly  the  precepts  of  i)hilosopIiy  ;  so,  he  sup- 
posed, philosophy  is  useful  to  a  theologian,  as  helping  l.im  to  acquire  just 
views  of  Christian  doctrines  and  to  give  just  expositions  of  them.  In  the  oiher 
passnge,  (which  is  in  his  xv.  Homily  on  Genesis,  sec.  3.  0pp.  torn.  ii.  98.)  he 
discourses  more  at  large,  and  not  only  of  what  he  considered  the  true  philoso- 
phy, but  also  of  the  current  philosopiiy  of  the  d.iy,  whether  true  or  fal-e.  Ho 
first  lays  down  this  proposition  :  Philosophia  neque  in  omnibus  le<ri  Dei  coii. 
traria  est,  neque  in  omnibus  consona:  and  he  then  explains  both  parts  of  the 
proposition,  adducing  examples  for  illustration.  On  the  agreement  ot'piiiloso- 
phy  wiih  the  divine  law,  he  says  :  Multi  enim  philosophorum  unum  esse  Deum, 
qui  cnneta  oreavcrif,  scribunt.  In  hoc  consen!iunt  legi  Dei.  Aliqu;!n:i  etiam 
hoc  addiderunt,  quod  Deus  cur.cta  per  verbum  suum  et  fecerit  et  regat,  et  ver- 
bum  Dei  sit,  quo  cuncta  moderentur.  In  hoc  iion  solum  legi,  sed  etiam  Evan- 
geliis  consona  seribunt.  Moralis  vero  et  physica,  qua3  dicitnr,  ihilusnphia^ 
paene  omnia  qua?  nostra  sunt  sentiunt.  He  then  proceeds  to  the  points  of  dis- 
agreement between  the  divine  law  and  philosophy,  thus:  Dissident  vero  a  no- 
bis, cum  Deo  dicunt  esse  materinm  coa?ternam.  Dissident,  cum  Deum  negant 
curare  mortali.i,  sed  providentiam  ejus  supra  lunaris  globi  spntia  cohiberi.  Dis- 
sident a  nobis,  cum  vitas  naf-ccntium  ex  stellarum  cursibus  per.dunt.  Dissi- 
dent, cum  sempiternuin  dicunt  hune  mundum  et  nullo  fine  elaudendum.  Sed 
et  :di.i  plurima  sunt,  in  quibus  nobis(um  vel  disvi.lent  vel  concordant.  These 
Btatenients  of  Origen  will  be  better  understood,  if  we  consider  his  subdivisions 
of  philosophy  ;  namely,  that  philosophy  was  commonly  divided  into  tlu'ee  parts, 
logic,  physics  and  ethics,  or  into  rational,  natural  and  moral  Therefore,  as  he 
most  explicitly  affirms, that  the  philosophers  agree  perfectly  with  the  Christi:in9 
in  physics  and  ethics,  or  in  natural  and  mor.d  pl.ilosophy,  it  is  clear  that  the 
whole  disngreemeut  between  |>hilosophy  and  Christianity,  in  his  opinion,  re- 
lated to  logic  or  rational  piiilosojhy.  But  his  rational  philosophy  is  not  that 
which  we  understand  by  tlie  term  ;  but  it  is  ontology,  or  our  pneumatohgy, 
cosmogony,  and  natural  theology,  as  is  manifest  from  the  ex.-imples  he  adduces. 
This  his  rational  philosophy,  as  taught  by  the  philosophical  sects,  was,  Jiccoid- 
ing  to  his  judgment,  in  many  things  contrary  to  the  Christian  religion:  but  if 


Ori(/cn's    TJicology.  155 

frocil  f.'O'.n  tlic  errors  niul  lalso  opinions  of  llic  set-ts,  ;iiul  ni:ulo  lo  conform  to 
tlu'  1ru:li,  it  u«>nKl  coiitr.in  noil  ii«^-  inc'on>ist(.'nt  wi'.li  Clirislianity.  And  this 
true  ralit'n.il  philo.^oiiliy,  he  bt'licvc  d  lo  be-  tli:it  which  he  h;;d  learned  in  Iho 
school  of  AminoiiiiKs.  This  was  ihe  pliilosopiiy,  which  lie  wished  to  associate 
>vilh  diiistian  truth,  and  to  produce  a  system  embracing  boMi. 

liiiw  large  a  place  in  Iheology,  Origen  would  allow  to  what  he  [p.  G18.] 
accounted  true  philosoj'hy,  and  by  what  laws  he  would  combine  them  together, 
we  nrc  now  to  show.  In  the  first  place,  he  allirmed,  that  all  the  things  which 
must  be  believed  in  ordi-r  to  salvaliun,  are  most  [)lainly  set  forlh  in  the  Scrip- 
tures: ard  these  things,  lie  would  have  men  simply  believe  without  subjecting 
them  at  :ill  to  the  dominion  of  p!;ilosoi)hy.  Thus,  in  the  introduction  to  hi3 
work  de  Priiicipiis  (see.  3.  |».  47.)  he  SJiys :  Illud  aufem  scire  oportet,  qnoniam 
sancti  Apostoli  fidem  Christi  pra^dicantes,  de  quibusdam  quidem  qucccunque 
necessari:i  (adsalutem)  crediderunt,  omnibus  etiam  his  qui  pigriores  erga  inqui- 
sitionem  divina3  scientia)  videbantur,  maivfestissime  tradiderunt.  And  of  the 
doctrines  which  he  supposed  were  taught  in  the  clearest  manner  in  the  Bible, 
and  which  should  be  received  without  dubitalion  or  criticism,  he  made  out  a 
sort  of  catalogue.  It  i-  this:  (I)  There  is  one  God,  the  author  and  creator  of 
all  things.  (II)  In  these  last  days,  this  God  hath  sent  Christ  to  call  first  the  Jews, 
and  then  other  nations.  (Ill)  Jesus  Christ  was  born  of  the  Father, anterior  to  the 
creation  (ante  omnem  creaturam),aud  was  the  minister  of  the  Father  in  thecrca- 
lion  of  all  things.  (IV)  The  same  Christ,  although  lie  was  God,  was  made  man, 
and  became  ir.carnate ;  and  being  made  man,  he  remained  God  as  he  was  before  ; 
he  truly  suflered,  truly  died,  and  truly  rose  again.  (V)  In  honor  and  dignity, 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  au  associate  of  the  Father  and  the  Son.  (VI)  Every  soul 
posses>es  reason,  and  free  volition  and  choice;  and,  when  removed  f.-om  the 
body,  will  be  rewarded  or  punished  aecoiding  to  its  deserts.  (VII)  Our  bodies 
will  be  raised  in  a  state  highly  imi)nived.  (VIII)  A  devil  and  his  angels 
exist;  and  they  strive  to  immerse  men  in  sins.  (IX)  This  world  will  lu  reaftcr 
be  dissolved.  (X)  The  holy  Scriptures  weio  dictated  1  y  the  Spirit  of  God  ; 
and  they  have  a  twofold  seu'e,  the  one  obvious,  the  other  latent.  (XI)  There 
are  good  angels  and  powers,  wl.ieh  minister  to  the  salvatiiMi  of  men.  Tliepe, 
he  says,  are  specimens  (sjecies)  of  the  ihhigs  that  are  niar.iiestly  inculcated  in 
the  Apostolic  annunci.ition.  This  language  seems  to  imply,  that  Ori<4en  did 
not  aim  to  make  a  complete  enumeration  of  the  doctrines  clearly  taught  in 
the  Bible  and  nccessaiy  to  be  known,  but  only  to  give  a  speci7iien  ofsuch  a  col- 
lection.    Yet  of  this  [  ;  m  not  entirely  ceitain,  and   I  leave  others  to  decide. 

But  the  inspired  men,  by  whom  the  })rincij'.al  truths  of  religion  are  stated 
KO  intelligibly  to  all,  have  left  other  truths  in  some  obscurity.  In  the  first 
place,  they  have  not  clearly  stated  the  nrou7icls  and  reasons  of  the  trnlhs  which 
they  require  us  to  believe:  that  is,  they  have  not  shown  us  how  the  reve.iled 
truths  they  teach  stand  related  to  the  first  jirinciples  of  truth  and  reason. 
And  again,  the  things  themselves,  they  have  indeed  stated  clearly  enough ;  but 
of  the  how,  7chy  ixvd  wherefore  they  are  so,  they  are  silent.  And  here  the  in- 
dustry of  wise  and  perspicacious  christians  may  find  employment ;  first,  in 
Bcarching  out  and  demonstrating,  by  the  aids  of  philosoi)liy,  the  groujiJs  a:ui 


156  Century  III.— Section  27. 

[p.  619.]  reasons  of  the  doctrines  divinely  revealed  ;  and  secondly,  in  dctermin. 
ing,  on  the  principk-s  of  a  true  philosophy,  the  modes  and  relations  of  the 
things  revealed  in  v'le  L**cripture^.  Such,  I  suppose,  were  Origen's  views :  but 
let  us  hear  his  own  word^.  In  the  preface  to  iiis  work  de  Principiis,  he  says: 
Ralionem  astertionis  eoruni  reli(|uerunt  (Apostoli)  ab  his  inquirendam,  qui 
Spiritus  dona  exeellentiora  niererentur,  et  proecipue  sermonis,  sapientiae  et 
Ecientiae  gratiani  per  ipsum  Spirituni  Sanctum  percepisseut.  Here  we  are 
taught,  that  the  things  at  first  obscure,  afterwards  become  more  clear.  Again 
he  says:  Dc  alils  vero  dixerunt  quidem,  quia  sint  :  ^ womot/o  autem,  aut  unde 
sint,  siluerunt ;  profecto  ut  studiusiores  quique  ex  posteris  suis,  qui  amatores 
essent  sapientiaj,  exereilinm  habere  possent,  in  quo  ingenii  sui  frnctum  osten- 
derent,  iii  videlicet  qui  dignos  se  et  capaces  ad  recipiendnni  sapientiam  prae- 
pararent.  The^e  statements  need  exemplification  ;  and  Origen  himself  affords 
it.  That  the  world  at  a  certain  time  began  to  exist,  and  will  a(,  a  certain 
time  perish,  is  incontrovertible,  and  is  most  expressly  affirmed  in  Scripture. 
But  for  what  cause  it  was  created,  and  why  it  will  be  destroyed,  we  are  very 
obscurely  informed.  Therefore,  these  are  things  to  be  investigated  by  the  aid 
of  philo^5ophy. — That  men  have  apostatised,  is  clear;  but  the  causes  of  their 
apostasy  are  not  equally  manifest,  and  therefore  must  be  inquired  after. — 
That  the  Holy  Spirit,  no  less  than  tlie  Son,  proceeded  from  the  Father,  the 
S^-riptures  manifestly  teach ;  but  the  mode  of  the  procession,  they  do  not 
define.  He  subjoins :  In  hoc  non  jam  manifesto  decernitur,  utrum  (Spiritus  S.) 
natus  an  innatus,  vel  filius  etiam  Dei  ipse  habendus  sit,  nee  ne.  Scd  inqui- 
renda  jam  ista  pro  viribus  sunt  de  sacra  scriptura  et  sagaci  perquisitione 
investiganda. — That  the  devil  and  his  angels  are  real  existences,  and  also  the 
angels  of  an  opposite  character,  no  person  who  has  read  the  Bible  will  deny. 
Of  these  he  tells  us ;  Sunt  quidem  hajc ;  qiicc  autem  sint,  aut  quomodo  sint,  non 
satis  cl.ire  exposuit.  Here,  therefore,  he  who  seeks  for  knowledge,  must  labor 
for  it. 

On  this  subject  it  is  especially  to  be  noticed,  that  both  here  and  elsewhere 
Origen  teaches,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  not  entirely  silent  respecting  the 
causes  or  reasons  of  the  truths  they  assert,  but  as  it  were  give  us  intimations 
of  them  ;  but  respecting  the  modes  or  forms  of  the  things,  they  are  wholly 
silent.  And  hence,  they  who  attempt,  by  the  aid  of  philosophy,  to  explore  the 
inmost  recesses  of  theology,  or  in  other  words,  to  bring  into  the  li(^ht  what 
the  Scriptures  have  lelt  in  the  dark, — have  not,  in  all  cases,  the  same  task  to 
perform,  and  the  same  success  to  antii-ipate.  Those  who  labor  to  explain  the 
causes  or  reasons  of  the  truths  taught  in  tlie  Bible,  must  not  only  call  philoso- 
phy to  their  aid,  but  must  also  carefully  search  out  the  arcane  senses  of  Holy 
Scripture.  For  Origen  firmly  believed,  that  under  cover  of  the  words,  phrases, 
images,  and  narratives  of  the  Scriptures,  the  Holy  Spirit  had  concealed  the  in- 
ternal reasons  and  grounds  of  things;  or,  as  he  himself  expresses  it,  that  in  the 
body  of  holy  writ,  (so  he  denominates  the  proper  seiise  of  the  words,)  there  was 
[p.  620.]  a  soul,  (an  arcane  and  recondite  sense,)  and  that  this  soul  exhibits,  to 
careful  contemplaters  of  it,  as  it  were  in  a  mirror,  the  causes,  connections,  and 
dependencies  of  both  human  and  divine  wisdom.     In  this  he  trod  in  the  path  of 


Origeris   Thcologrj.  157 

P/j//o  Judaeus;  whom  he, — following  the  example  and  authorify  of  Clement^  his 
pitH'e|it(tr, — ivirarded  as  the  wisest  of  all  e.\i)loreis  of  the  true  sense  of 
Seripturt',  and  therclore  followed  as  his  iruide. — HiU  wIumi  I  hi;  modes^  or  forms 
of  the  thing-s  are  to  be  ex.imined,  the  philosophic  theologian  need  not  resort  to 
the  s:iered  Scriptures;  because,  aa  they  say  nothing  of  the  modes  of  things,  he 
must  trust  and  follow  his  own  ingenuity  and  the  dictates  of  philosophv.  A  pas- 
sage already  cited  is  applicable  here;  but  I  will  adduce  another,  equ:!lly  expli- 
cit, and  admir.ibly  illustrative  of  the  char.icter  of  Oiigen's  system.  He  siys, 
(p.  49)  :  Oportct  igitur,  velut  elemenlis  ac  I'uiidaiiK.'ntis  hnju-modi  uli  secun- 
dum mandatum  quod  dicit:  Illuminate  xobis  lumen  scienlLc  (Hose,  x.  12,  Sep- 
tuag.)  oinneni,  qui  cupit  seriem  quamdam  et  corpus  ex  horuin  omnium  rationc 
perlicere,  ut  m:ini:eslis  ct  uccessariis  as'^erlioiiibns  de  s-ingulis,  quibus(|ue  quid 
eit  in  vero  riiuetnr  et  unum  (ut  diximus)  corpus  etliciat  exemplis  et  alliiin:itioni. 
bus,  vel  his  quas  in  sane'. is  Scriptinis  invencrit  (i.  e.,  he  who  would  combine 
theology  and  philosophy,  and  Irom  both  frame  one  system,  must  endeavor  to 
nscertaiu  the  grounds  and  reasons  of  the  doctrines,  by  examining  into  the  arcane 
sense  of  the  sacred  books.)  vel  quas  ex  conscquenlioe  ipsins  indagine  ac  recti 
tenorc  repererit,  (i.  e.  but  if  the  jnode  is  the  thing  sought  for,  of  wliicli  the  Scrip- 
tures  say  nothing,  then  it  is  sullicient  to  explain  and  define  it  in  accordance 
with  {tenore  recli)  the  dictates  of  philosophy.) — These  statements  may  enable 
us  to  understind  why  Origen,  in  explaining  religious  truths  generally  betakes 
himself  first  to  reason  and  philosophy,  and  then  recurs  to  the  s;icred  or.iclcs, 
to  elucidate  by  them  his  explanations,  and  to  confirm  his  conjectures  by  some 
similitude;  but  sometimes,  without  consulting  the  Scriptures  at  all,  he  makes 
philosophy  his  sole  guide.  The  former  is  his  course,  when  he  supposes  the  in- 
quiry relates  to  the  causes  of  things;  and  the  latter  when  the  modes  or  forms 
are  discussed.  Yet  as  these  two  things  are  intimately  connected  and  often 
scarcely  sepnrable,  he  not  unfrequcnlly  confounds  them,  and  but  seldom  discri- 
minates accurately  between  them. 

The  labor  of  investigating  the  causes  or  reasons  of  the  revealed  truths  and 
doctrines  by  appeals  to  the  Scriptures,  is  more  arduous  and  dirficult  than  tho 
labor  of  exploring  and  defining  the  modes  oi'  forms  of  holy  things.  Because, 
for  the  former,  the  illumination  and  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  necessary  ;  and 
none  can  succeed  in  it,  (as  he  says,)  "except  those  who  have  acquired  the  more 
excellent  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and,  especially.  h:ive  obtained,  through  tho 
Holy  Spirit,  the  gift  of  language,  of  wisdom,  and  of  knowledge."  This  he  re- 
peats often,  both  in  his  work  de  Principiis  and  elsewhere,  declaring  [p.  6:21.] 
that  they  only  are  competent  to  this  work  whom  God  deems  worthy  of  his  spe- 
cial friendship.  He  s.ays,  repeatedly :  Certius  sciunt,  qui  Dei  per  Christum  et 
Spiritum  Sanctum  amici  sunt.  The  full  force  of  iiis  declarations  can  be  under- 
stood by  those  only  who  are  familiar  with  the  theology  of  the  ancient  Chris- 
tians. It  was  an  established  opinion  among  them,  one  that  prevailed  long  be- 
fore the  times  of  Origen,  that  the  proper  and  natural  sense  of  the  words  of  the 
Bible  is  obvious  to  all  readers  who  are  not  heedless  and  stupid;  but  that  what 
Origen  calls  spirtialem  inlelUgenliam — the  remote  sense,  or  that  latent  under 
the  words  and   things, — is  manifest  only  to  those  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  in- 


158  Centinnj  Ill—Section  27. 

structs  nnd  illuininntc^.  And  this  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  whii-li  confiTS  the 
power  of  discovering  tlic  inysterit's  hidden  in  tlie  snered  books,  Ihey  called  the 
gift  ofwisdimi  and  knouiedge ;  :ind  of  this  gift  tliey  understood  St.  Paul  to  speak, 
1  Cor.  .\ii.  8  ;  "For  to  one  is  given  h^  the  Spirit  the  word  of  wisdom  Cac^raj); 
to  another  the  word  of  knowledge  {yvuiO-tua)  by  the  same  Spirit."  And  iience 
they  were  accustomed  to  use  the  word  knowledge  (jvutTn)  to  designate  the 
mystical  sense  of  the  Bible.  Sec  Jo.  Ern.  Grabe's  Spicil.  Patr.  et  Ilajreticor. 
Saec.  i.  p.  328;  and  tlie  notes  of  the  learned  on  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  \  6. 
Now,  as  Origen  believed,  that  in  the  Scriptures  the  Holy  Spirit  teaches  us — 
not  indeed  by  the  xcords  but  by  the  things  which  the  words  indicate,  not  openly 
but  covertly,  by  allegories  and  enigmas — how  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity harmonize  with  each  other,  and  with  the  decisions  of  philosophy,  it  was 
natural  for  him  to  assert,  thnt  divine  assistance  is  necessnry  for  drawing  this 
nut  out  of  its  envelope. — 'J'lie  other  task,  that  of  exploring  the  7nodfs  of  things, 
was  less  diflicult  ;  because,  in  addition  to  a  knowledge  of  true  })hilosophy,  it 
required  only  an  earnest  application  of  the  powers  of  the  human  mind.  And 
hence,  as  r.itional  truth  and  revealed  or  heavenly  truth  do  not  disagree,  a  saga- 
cious man,  possessing  sound  reason,  can  easily  di-cover  their  agreeniint.  Yet 
he  does  not  deny,  but  declares  often  and  in  various  terms,  that  as  divine  things 
are  more  sublime  and  excellent  than  human,  great  care  is  necessary  lest  we 
misjudge  in  such  matters;  and  that  some  parts  of  the  Christian  religion  are  so 
difficult,  that  they  c:in  scarcely,  if  at  all,  be  adequately  explained  by  human 
phrases  and  analogies.  Of  this  nature,  he  gravely  tells  us,  is  the  doctrine  of 
the  union  of  two  natures  in  Christ,  which,  though  he  explains  it  according  to 
the  principles  of  his  philosophy,  yet  he  bids  his  hearers  remember,  can  never  be 
fully  explained.  Of  this  doctrine  he  fays  (de  Principp.  L.  ii.  c.  6.  J  2.  p.  90) : 
"I  suppose  that  it  is  beyond  the  comprehension  of  even  the  holy  Apostles; 
nay,  perhaps,  the  explanation  of  this  sacrament  exceeds  all  created  intelligence 
among  the  Angels." — From  these  statements,  I  think,  we  may  learn  the  cause 
of  the  great  modesty  and  timidity  which  Origen  exhibits  in  his  exposition  of 
many  topics  in  theology.  He  supposed  no  one,  unless  having  familiar  inter- 
[p.  622.]  course  with  God,  and  receiving  thcgifl  of  wisdom  and  knowledge,  could 
successfully  explore  the  hidden  meanings  of  the  Bible;  but  whether  he  himself 
had  obtained  this  gift  from  God,  he  dared  not  decide.  He  therefore  alwiiys  ap- 
proached this  species  of  discussion  with  timidity,  and  he  left  it  timidly  ;  h-o 
almost  never  affirmed  positively,  that  he  had  ascertained  the  true  import  of  the 
texts  he  discussed.  He  assumes  more  confidence,  indeed,  when  he  thinks  the 
coincidence  between  theology  and  philosophy  to  be  manifest ;  and  he  seems, 
sometimes,  to  know  and  be  positive,  rather  than  diffidently  to  utter  his 
opinions.  Yet,  as  he  fully  believed  that  many  things  in  theology  are  beyond 
human  comprehension,  he  seldom  discusses  what  we  call  the  mysteries  of  reli- 
gion, in  a  manner  that  would  imply  the  impossibility  that  anything  more  satis- 
fiictory  can  be  said  of  them.  On  the  contrary,  he  almost  invariably  declares 
himself  ready  to  change  his  opinion,  if  any  friend  of  God  can  offer  more  correct 
views  of  the  subject. 

It  will  now  be  seen,  if  I  mistake  not,  of  what  nature  and  magnitude  were 


Orir/en's  Philosopliic    Theology.  15ft 

tljosc  ofToMCCs  of  Ori^en  u<jnin3t  Cliris'.imity,  uhi.Ii  occasioned  so  nnicli  con- 
troversy during  so  many  ages.  Tliey  all  originated  from  tula  one  princij)le, 
whic'i  lie  regarded  as  beyond  all  controversy,  I'.iat  suck  ajjln'Uy  and  congruilij 
exist  bclween  ChrlslianUy  and  human  reason,  that  not  only  the  grounds  but  also 
the  forms  of  all  Christian  doctrines  may  be  explained  by  the  dicta'es  if  'philosophy. 
Yet  this  error,  tliougli  not  small,  might  be  considered  only  a  slight  stain  upon 
that  holy  and  extraordinary  man,  if  it  h:id  not  been  carried  beyond  mere  specu- 
lation. Bat  he  recommeniled  to  the  preachers  of  Christianity,  to  carry  what  he 
tauy^ht  into  use  ajid  general  practice;  and  he  preseribi-d  for  their  gnid  ince  tho 
following  maxia:  That  it  is  xastly  important  to  the  honor  and  odcantajc  of 
C'lristianitij,  that  all  its  doctrines  be  traced  bade  to  the  sources  of  all  truth,  or  bs 
shown  to  flow  from  the  principles  of  philosophy ;  and  consequently,  that  a  Chris- 
tian theologian  should  exert  his  ingenuity  and  industry  primarily,  to  demonstrate 
Vie  harmony  between  religion  and  reason,or  to  show  that  there  is  nothing  taught  in 
the  l^criptures  but  what  is  founded  in  reason.  He  himself,  as  \\a  have  seen,  fol- 
lowed thii  his  prect'pt  with  some  degree  of  moderation  and  prudence  ;  but  by 
1  lying  down  this  principle,  and  also  by  his  exunple,  he  gave  to  the  more  daring 
ample  power  and  licence  to  do  violence  to  revealed  truth,  and  to  strangely  pervert 
the  plainest  doctrines  of  the  Bd)le,  so  that  they  might  appear  in  harmony  with  a 
true  or  false  philosophy.  His  direction  to  make  apj)eals  to  the  Scriptures,  might 
fceem  to  counteract  ihe  evil,  but,  in  reality,  it  increased  and  amplified  it.  For, 
by  teaching  tlint  the  philosophical  reasons  of  all  the  Christian  doctrines  lie  con- 
cealed in  the  narration  and  sentences  of  the  Bible,  and  should  be  drawn  forth 
by  art  an  I  ingenuity,  he  prompted  the  indiscreet  and  those  of  exuberant  imagi- 
nations, as  it  were,  to  put  out  the  light  of  revelation,  or  obscure  its  simple  wis- 
dom, by  their  childish  and  silly  allegories. — The  foundation  of  all  his  faults 
vas,  that  he  fully  believed  nothing  to  be  more  true  and  certain  than  [p.  623.] 
what  the  philosophy  he  received  from  Ammonias  taught  him  respecting  God, 
the  world,  souls,  demons,  &c. ;  and  therefore  he  in  a  measure  recast  and  re- 
modelled the  doctrines  of  Christ,  after  the  pattern  of  that  philosophy,  doing  it 
indeed,  for  the  most  part,  modestly  and  hesitatingly,  but  sometimes  quito 
boldly,  and  in  a  style  somewhat  authoritative. 

The  entire  system  of  philosophical  religion  which  existed  in  the  mind  of 
Origen,  no  one  has  fully  delineated:  nor  was  Origen  uniform  and  consistent  in 
his  statements  of  it ;  for  he  discards  at  one  time  what  he  affirms  at  another.  A 
large  part  of  his  system,  however,  will  be  obvious  to  one  who  considers  what 
we  have  already  said  of  his  philosophy,  and  especially  what  he  held  respcc'ting 
the  origination  of  all  things  from  God,  the  free-will  of  souls,  their  transgressing 
in  their  primitive  state,  and  before  their  union  with  bodies,  and  other  kindred 
subjects;  for,  while  he  was  undecided  on  many  other  topics,  on  these  he  had  no 
doubts;  and  therefore  he  constantly  applied  these  views  to  the  explication  of 
the  Christian  doctrines. — Specimens  of  his  opinions  on  the  most  essential 
pointa  in  theology,  are  all  we  shall  present  for  the  gratification  of  those  wish- 
ing to  know  these  matters.  In  the  first  place,  he  supposed  that  all  the  decla- 
rations of  the  Scriptures  respecting  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  thcf  Holy  Spirit, 
might  be  easily  reconciled  with  his  philosophy.     For,  believing  that  all  things 


160  Century  III— Section  27, 

eternally  emanated  from  tlie  divine  nature,  lie  .-ittributed  to  the  Son  and  to  the 
Holy  Spirit  the  iiiiiliest  rank  among-  these  emanalloiis  from  the  divine  nature. 
And  he  always  and  uniformly  compares  tlieir  origination  from  the  Faiher,  with 
the  efflui:  of  the  solar  rays  from  the  sun;  and  teaches  that  these  solar  rays, 
although  of  the  same  nature  with  the  sun  from  which  they  flow,  are  yet  only 
minute  particles  of  the  solar  light  and  heat  issuing  from  the  immeniic  mass; 
and  that  they  sustain  the  same  relation  to  their  source,  as  small  streams  i<suing 
from  great  lakes,  sustain  to  those  lakes.  In  his  opinion,  therefore,  the  Father 
is  the  prime  cause  of  all  things,  and  the  Snn  is  a  secondary  cause,  and,  as  it 
Avere,  the  instrument  by  which  the  Father  created  the  world,  and  ditfused  widely 
his  beneficence ;  just  as  a  cloud,  wiien  fecundated  by  the  sun's  rays,  scatters  and 
spreads  those  r.iys  over  the  e;irlh.  In  evolving  and  expanding  this  doctrine, 
Origen  is  wonderfully  variable;  so  that  he  sometimes  seems  to  come  very  near 
the  views  of  the  Nicenc  fathers,  at  other  times  to  incline  towards  the  Snbellians, 
and  at  times  to  agree  with  the  Arians.  If  we  would  judge  him  correctly  and 
fairly,  we  must,  I  think,  keep  in  view  his  first  or  fundamental  principles. — Ori- 
gen finds  greater  difficulty  when  he  attempts  to  reconcile  with  his  philosophy 
what  the  Scrii)tures  teach  re^«pecting  the  union  of  two  natures  in  Christ. 
For  he  thought  it  utterly  impossible  that  God,  a  being  entirely  separate  from 
matter,  shouhl  ever  assume  a  body,  or  be  willing  to  associate  himself  with  mat- 
ter. He  expressly  tells  us,  (de  Princip.  L.  ii.  c.  6.  p.  90.) :  Non  cnim  possibUe 
crat  Dei  natiiram  corpori  sine  mediatore  nilscerl.  That  is,  the  divine  nature,  being 
[p.  624.]  generically  a  different  substance  from  matter,  the  two  substances  cannot 
possibly  be  commingled.  To  overcome  this  obstacle,  and  yet  exclude  from 
the  divine  nature  all  propension  towards  a  body  or  matter,  he  conceived  that 
God  did  not  receive  the  man,  but  the  man  received  God.  Yet  not  the  whole 
man  did  so,  but  only  the  srml,  the  principal  part  of  man.  Tliat  soul,  which  mi- 
grated into  the  body  of  Chri.^t  and  inhabited  it,  exerted  more  perfectly  than  all 
the  souls  which  emanated  from  God,  its  free-will,  in  the  wisest  and  best  man- 
ner, in  its  primitive  state,  and  expended  all  its  energies  in  the  contemplation 
of  the  Son  of  God,  the  first  emanation  from  the  divine  nature.  This  persever- 
ing and  most  intense  consideration  or  contemplation  of  the  Word  or  Son  of 
God,  procured  for  this  soul  the  privilege  that  it  received  the  entire  Word  of 
God  into  itself,  or  itself  passed  entire  into  the  Son  of  God,  (it  is  uncertain 
wliich.)  and  thus  it  became  one  person  with  the  Son  of  God.  Hear  his  own 
statement,  (de  Princip.  L,  ii,  c.  6.  p.  90.) :  Cum  pro  liberi  avbitrii  facultate  varic- 
tas  unumquemque  ac  diveritas  animorum  habuisset,  ut  alius  ardentiore,  alius 
tenuiore  et  exiliore  crga  auctorem  suum  amore  teneretur,  ilia  anima,  de  qua 
dixit  Jesus:  quia  nemo  auferet  a  me  animam  meam  (Joh.  x.  18,)  ab  initio 
creaturae  et  deinceps  inseparabiliter  ei  atque  indissociabiliter  inhaerens,  utpotc 
sapienticc  et  verbo  Dei  et  veritati  ac  luci  verac,  et  tota  totum  recipiens,  atque  in 
ejus  lucem  splendoremquc  ipsa  cedens,  facta  est  cum  ipso  principaliter  unu3 
spiritus.  -  -  -  Unus  spiritus  esse  cum  Deo  cui  magis  convenit,  quam  huic  animaa 
quae  se  ita  Deo  per  dilectionem  junxit,  ut  cum  co  unus  spiritus  merito  dicatun 
What  Origen  here  asserts  of  the  soul  of  Christ,  appears  to  us  as  a  mere  as- 
sumption ;  but  he  regarded  it  as  accordant  both  with  the  dictates  of  reason  and 


J 


OrigeiCs  views  of  Atonement.  161 

t!ie  declarations  of  Scripture.  By  reason,  he  tliiis  supports  his  opinion :  No 
one  can  be  rewarded  or  punished  by  God,  unless  he  merits  it.  Because  God, 
being  most  wise  and  righteous,  can  do  nothing  inconsiderately  or  without  good 
reason.  And  therefore  he  must  distribute  both  happiness  and  misery,  accord- 
ing to  the  merits  of  those  who  are  susceptible  of  them.  Hence  it  follows,  that 
this  supreme  felicity  which  the  soul  of  Christ  received,  was  conferred  upon  it, 
solely  because  of  its  merits.  And  if  so,  then  it  follows  that  this  soul  excelled 
all  others  in  its  love  to  God,  and  in  consequence  of  this  love,  became  united  to 
the  Son  of  God. — As  for  scriptural  evidence,  he  supposed  tlve  words^of  David, 
Ps.  xlv.  8.  [The  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom  is  a  right  sceptre,]  were  especi;illy 
favorable  to  his  opinion:  and  with  that  text,  he  connected  others  both  from  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  New. — By  means  of  this  union  of  the  soul  of  Christ 
with  the  Word  or  Son  of  God,  it  became  possible  for  God  to  be  united  to  a  hu- 
man body:  not  indeed  directly,  and  by  itself,  but  indirectly,  through  the  soul 
to  which  he  was  united.  For,  according  to  Origen's  views,  every  linite  spirit 
is  clothed  with  a  tenuous  body  or  a  subtile  kind  of  matter,  which  subtile  mat- 
ter, without  any  ditliculty,  can  coalesce  with  the  grosser  kind  of  matter  of  which 
our  bodies  are  composed.  And  in  a  finite  spirit,  like  the  soul,  the  desire  [p.  625.1 
may  arise  for  greater  happiness  ;  and  consequently,  also  a  wish  to  possess  a  body. 
lie  says:  Hac  ergo  substantia  animaa  inter  Deum  carnemque  mediante,  (non 
enim  possibile  crat  Dei  naturam  corpori  sine  mediatore  misceri)  nascitur  Deus 
liomo,  ilia  substantia  media  existente,  cui  utique  contra  naturam  non  erat  cor- 
pus assumere.  Sed  neque  rursus  anima  ilia,  utpote  substantia  rationabilis, 
contra  naturam  habuit  capere  Deum,  in  quern,  uti  superius  diximus,  velut  in 
verbum  et  sapientiam  et  veritatem  tota  jam  cesserat.  Unde  et  merito  etiam  ipsa 
cum  ea,  quam  assumserat,  carne,  Dei  filius,  el  Dei  virtus,  Christus  et  sapientia  ap- 
j)t?latur:  et  rursum  Dei  filius,  per  quern  omnia  creata  sunt,  Jesus  Christus  et  filius 
iiominis  nominatur. — But  if  these  things  were  so,  then  most  assuredly  the  Son 
of  God  did  not  connect  himself  with  human  flesh  ;  but  it  was  the  soul  of  Christ 
that  became  incarnate.  Nor  did  the  Word  or  Son  of  God,  though  dwelling  in 
a  body,  have  any  intercourse  with  that  body,  (according  to  Origen,  that  was 
impossible,)  but  only  the  soulW\i\\  which  the  Word  had  some  affinity,  commu- 
nicated with  the  body :  that  is,  the  soul,  having  so  coalesced  with  the  Son  of 
God  as  to  be  one  spirit,  governed  the  body,  and  so  regulated  all  its  movements 
that  they  could  not  swerve  from  the  rule  of  rectitude  and  duty.  Moreover,  the 
moving  cause  of  the  descent  of  the  Son  of  God  to  this  earth  and  of  the  incarnii- 
tion,  was  not  in  God,  in  his  good  will  towards  mankind;  but  it  was  in  the  soul 
of  Jesus  Christ.  For  this  soul  first  perseveringly  longed  after  communion  with 
the  Word  or  Son  of  God,  and,  by  the  right  use  of  its  freedom  of  choice,  ob- 
tained it ;  and  afterwards,  it  desired  to  be  joined  with  matter  or  to  a  body,  which, 
according  to  Origen,  the  divine  nature  never  could  desire.  And,  therefore,  in 
this  whole  matter,  the  Son  of  God  had  no  concern,  except  that  he  became 
united  with  the  soul  of  Christ,  and  tiien  permitted  that  soul  to  follow  its  wishes 
and  inclinations. 

As  to  the  object  and  consequences  of  the  advent  of  the  Son  of  God  to  our 
world,  and  of  his  sufferings  and  death,  Origen  nowhere  fully  and  explicitly 

12 


163  Centimj  III.— Section  27. 

states  his  views ;  but  that  his  opinions  on  this  subject  were  very  different  from 
those  of  modern  Christians,  and  from  the  faith  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  liis 
philosophical  notions  respecting'  the  soul  and  other  matters,  will  not  allow  us  to 
doubt.  And  in  various  passages  he  does  not  disguise  the  fact,  although  he  may 
seem  to  take  much  pains  not  to  let  his  hearers  fully  understand  him.  One 
thing  indeed  he  often  states,  namely,  that  Christ  by  his  death  made  atonement, 
not  for  the  sins  committed  by  souls  in  their  primitive  state  before  they  inha- 
bited bodies,  but  for  their  sins  in  the  body ;  and  so  far  his  opinions  do  not 
differ  from  the  common  views  of  Christians.  But  it  is  quite  otherwise,  if  we 
carefully  weigh  what  he  abundantly  inculcates.  I  will  not  dwell  on  his  belief, 
that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  had  a  reference  to  the  sun,  the  moon,  and  all  the 
stars,  and  to  demons  and  angels;  for,  while  his  philosophy  taught  him  that 
sinning  souls  inhabited  not  only  human  bodies,  but  likewise  other  material 
[p.  626.]  objects,  and  also  the  demons,  both  those  wholly  depraved  and  those 
but  partially  bereft  of  their  native  beauty,  and  that  Christ  proffers  aid  to  all 
souls  estranged  from  God ;  he  could  not  possibly  think  otherwise.  But,  what 
is  vastly  more  important,  Origen  was — if  I  am  not  wholly  deceived — ignorant  of 
the  vicarious  nature  of  Christ's  atonement,  or  he  did  not  hold  that  Christ,  in 
our  stead,  paid  to  divine  justice  the  penalty  of  our  ill  deserts.  Nor  will  this 
appear  strange,  if  we  consider  that  he  denied  the  communion  of  the  Son  of  God 
with  the  body  of  Christ,  and  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures  in 
Christ,  or  what  we  call  the  hypostatic  union ;  and  that  he  held,  as  we  have  be- 
fore stated,  that  only  the  soul  of  Christ  was  connected  with  the  Word  or  Son 
of  God ;  from  which  it  must  indubitably  follow,  that  the  pangs  and  death  of 
Christ's  body  were  only  those  of  the  man  Christ,  and  not  also  of  God  joined 
with  human  nature ;  and  that  the  blood  which  Christ  shed  was  only  the  blood  of 
a  man,  and  not  the  blood  of  God ;  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  that  Christ,  not  as 
both  God  AND  man,  but  only  as  a  wan,  expiated  the  sins  of  mankind.  And  if 
this  be  admitted,  all  that  we  teach  respecting  the  vicarious  satisfiiction  of  Christ 
falls  to  the  ground. — If  now  the  inquiry  be  raised,  in  what  manner  he  supposed 
the  death  of  Christ  to  take  away  the  sins  of  men  ?  I  answer,  first :  he  is  no- 
where explicit  on  this  subject.  Yet  I  will  add,  that  he  seems  to  have  held,  that 
the  effusion  of  Christ's  blood  was  sufficient  to  jpurify  men  and  to  appease  divine 
justice.  He  has  a  long  passage  on  this  subject,  in  his  24th  Homily,  on  the  book 
of  Numbers,  \  1.  (0pp.  tom.  ii.  p.  362,  363.)  From  this  passage  his  views  are 
more  clearly  learned  than  from  any  others.  He  first  asserts:  Omnepeccatum  pro- 
pitiationem  requirere ;  propitiationem  autcm  non  fieri,  nisi  per  hostiam,  id  est,  per 
sanguinem  victimcc  Deo  ohlatcc  ;  eaque  re  necessarium  fuisse,  ut  provideretur 
hostia  pro  peccatis  hominum.  All  this  seems  well  enough;  but  what  he  goes  on  to 
say,  and  the  inferences  he  makes,  clearly  show,  that  he  attached  to  this  language 
a  very  different  meaning  from  that  common  among  Christians.  For  he  asserts,  that 
the  blood  of  any  righteous  person  can  expiate  the  sins  of  a  portion  of  mankind; 
and  especially  if  the  righteous  person,  at  the  time  he  dies  and  pours  out  his 
blood,  prays  God  to  pardon  those  for  whom  he  dies.  Between  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  and  those  which  holy  and  righteous  men,  such  as  Paul,  Abel,  and  others, 
present  to  God  by  their  death,  there  are  two  points  of  difference,  viz. :  first,  the 


Origcn's    Views  of  Atonement.  1G3 

sacrifice  cf  Christ  was  universal,  or  extended  to  the  whole  human  race,  while 
those  of  other  righteous  persons  can  benefit  only  a  portion  of  mankind  before 
God ;  secondly,  the  blood  of  righteous  men  derives  its  efficacy  chiefly  from  the 
prayers  of  those  men  ;  while  Christ,  being  God,  can  remit  sins,  solely  by  his 
power,  on  account  of  his  death  :  Vide  ergo,  ne  forte  sicut  Dominus  et  Salvator 
noster,  quasi  agnus  ad  occisionem  ductus  et  in  sacrificium  altaris  oblatus,  pecca- 
torum  remissionem  universo  prcestitit  mundo  :  ita  fortasse  (a  modest  [p.  627.] 
statement,  as  usual  with  him,  but  in  accordance  with  his  real  belief,  as  the  whole 
context  shows,)  et  cseterorum  sanctorum  ac  justorum  sanguis,  qui  effusus  est  a 
sanguine  Abel  justi  usque  ad  sanguincm  Zacharioe  prophets,  alterius  quidem 
sanguis  sicut  vitula3,  alterius  sicut  hirci,  aut  caprae  aut  alicujus  horum  fusus 
est  adexpiandum  pro  aliqua  parte  populum.  And  this,  he  thinks,  can  be  proved 
from  the  law  of  Moses.  For  while  the  law  required  various  kinds  of  animals, 
lambs,  calves,  goats,  &c.,  to  be  immolated  to  God  for  sin,  Origen  supposed 
slain  lambs  to  be  emblems  of  Christ's  death,  but  that  the  other  animals  repre- 
sented the  deaths  of  holy  and  righteous  men.  Hear  him  explicitly  stating  this 
strange  doctrine  :  Quod  si  agnus,  qui  ad  purificandum  populum  datus  est,  ad 
personam  Domini  et  Salvatoiis  nostri  refertur,  eonsequens  videtur,  quod  etiam 
cffitera  animalia,  quae  eisdem  purificativis  usibus  deputata  sunt,  referri  dibeant 
similiter  ad  aliquas  personas,  qua3  purificationis  aliquid  humano  generi  confe- 
rant.  And  he  repeats  tiie  same  thing  a  little  after,  adding  that  perhaps  also 
some  of  the  angels  and  celestial  spirits  may  offer  themselves  to  God,  as  victims 
to  expiate  the  sins  of  men:  Sic  ergo  fortassis  et  si  quis  angelorum,  coelestium- 
que  virtutum,  aut  si  quis  justorum  hominum,  vel  etiam  sanctorum  prophetarum 
atque  apostolorum,  qui  enixius  interveniat  (i.  e.  precelur)  pro  peccatis  hominum, 
hie  pro  repropitiatione  divina,  velut  aries,  aut  vitulus,  aut  hircus  oblatus  esse  in 
sacriticium  ob  purificalionem  populo  impetrandam  accipi  potest.  After  elucidat- 
ing this  subject  by  the  example  of  Paul,  whose  language  (in  Rom.  ix.  3, 1  could 
wish  myself  accursed,  &c. ;  and  in  2  Tim.  iv.  6, 1  am  now  ready  to  be  offered, 
Sm.)  he  cites  in  confirmation ;  and  after  fully  explaining  his  views,  he  returns 
to  the  consideration  of  Christ's  sacrifice,  and  its  difference  from  human  victims, 
and  tells  us:  Talis  ha3c  fuit  (Chrisli)  hostia  ut  una  sola  sufficeret  pro  totius 
mundi  salute  ;  cceieri  enim  precibus  peccata,  hie  solus  potestate  dimisit.  Strikingly 
coincident  herewith  are  his  remarks  concerning  martyrs  and  their  blood,  in  his 
Exhorialio  ad  Marlyi'ium,  near  the  end :  Forte,  quemadmodum  nos  pretioso 
Christi  sanguine  redempti  sumus;  ita  et  quidam  pretioso  martyrum  sanguine 

redimuntur :   ot/Taj    tw    Tiy-tta    aiuari    ruv    /nafTvfbyv   dyopafr^-YiO-ovrai    nvec' • 

Origen  did  not  suppose,  and,  for  various  reasons,  he  could  not  suppose,  that 
those  holy  and  righteous  men,  the  martyrs,  who  (as  he  believed,)  expiated  the 
sins  of  some  men  by  their  death  or  blood,  were,  either  by  God  or  by  their  own 
act,  substituted  in  the  place  of  the  persons  whose  sins  they  expiated,  and  so 
endured  the  penalties  due  to  God  for  other  men's  sins;  and  therefore,  neither  did 
he  believe  that  Christ — whose  death  he  regarded  as  not  in  itself  differing  from 
the  sufferings  of  those  holy  and  righteous  persons — was  a  substitute  for  the  hu- 
man race,  and  endured  our  penalties.  And,  consequently,  we  must  f  p.  628.] 
believe  that  Origen  thought  the  mere  blood  of  an  innocent  person  could,  of 


164  Century  IIL—Sectlon  27. 

itself,  move  God  to  pardon  sinners ;  and  that,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  divine 
justice  does  not  require  the  penalties  of  them  to  be  endured,  either  by  the  via- 
laters  of  the  law  or  by  their  substitutes. 

What  ICC  most  reli^nously  believe,  namely,  that  the  Son  of  God  satisfied 
the  divine  law  in  our  slead,  and,  by  his  most  perfect  obedience,  merited  for  us  a 
title  to  eternal  life, — all  this  was  alien  from  the  philosophical  religion  of  Origen. 
According  to  his  belief,  there  resides  in  the  minds  of  all  men  a  free  will,  a  na- 
tive power  of  obeying  the  divine  commands,  which,  when  excited  by  a  know- 
ledge of  divine  truth,  a^id  aided  by  tlie  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  can  so  con- 
trol and  govern  all  the  movements  and  actions  of  the  man,  as  to  make  those 
actions  perfectly  harmonize  with  the  divine  will.  Nor  can  God, — as  Origen 
clearly  states  in  several  places, — bestow  the  rewards  of  law,  or  the  forfeited 
eternal  felicity,  upon  any  souls  except  the  meritorious;  that  is,  such  as  exert 
wisely  and  properly  their  innate  liberty.  For  as  souls,  by  the  depraved  use  of 
their  liberty,  have  deservedly  lost  their  happiness  and  been  thrust  into  these 
human  bodies,  so  also,  by  their  own  merits,  and  not  by  those  of  another,  they 
must  return  to  God,  and  regain  their  lost  felicity. — I  need  not  proceed  further; 
enough  has  been  stated  to  show  what  is  the  character  of  Origen's  philosophical 
theology,  which  differed  marvellously  from  that  of  Christians  at  the  present 
day.  Yet  if  any  are  desirous  of  examining  the  entire  system  of  this  celebrated 
man,  and  of  judging  correctly  of  the  controversies  of  so  many  great  men  respect- 
ing his  sentiments,  (which,  I  can  recognize  no  one  hitherto  as  doing,)  they 
must,  first  of  all,  investigate,  methodically  digest,  and  intelligibly  explain  that 
philosophy  which  Origen  has  given  us  by  fragments  in  his  writings;  and  this 
being  done,  it  will  be  readily  perceived,  that  they  labor  in  vain  who  would  per- 
suade us  that  Origen  had  the  same  views  of  religion  as  most  Christians  of  the 
present  day.  For  example:  distinguished  men  dispute,  with  great  earnestness, 
what  opinion  did  Origen  hold  in  regard  to  the  resurrection,  or  the  return  of 
souls  to  their  bodies;  and  some  accuse,  and  some  defend  him.  T  confess  I  am 
ignorant  of  his  opinion ;  for  on  this  subject,  as  on  many  others,  he  is  variable 
and  inconstant  in  the  exposition  of  his  views.  But  if  I  compare  the  Christian 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  with  his  philosophical  precepts,  I  readily  see  that 
he  must  have  viewed  the  subject  differently  from  us.  For  while  he  places  the 
whole  of  man  in  his  soul,  and  regards  the  concrete  visible  body,  in  which  the 
soul  lodges,  as  no  part  of  human  nature,  but  only  the  penitentiary  or  prison  of 
the  soul,  it  is  evident  that  he  could  not  suppose  a  soul,  at  the  end  of  its  pe- 
riod of  exile,  and  when  purged  from  its  sins,  would  again  become  coupled  with 
its  body. — There  is  another  thing  generally  overlooked  by  the  disputants  con- 
cerning Origen,  which  is  of  vast  importance  in  their  discussions.  As  Origen 
held  to  a  two-fold  religion,  the  one  popular  and  the  other  philosophical; 
[p.  629.]  so  he  treated  religion  in  a  two-fold  manner,  sometimes  in  a  popular 
way  and  sometimes  philosophically.  Now,  those  who  overlook  this  fact  may 
ofte«  suppose  him  to  disagree  with  himself,  while,  in  reality,  he  is  entirely  con- 
sistent ;  and  this  is  one  cause  of  the  endless  disputes  respecting  his  theology. 
They  who  plead  his  cause  and  defend  his  reputation,  cite  the  passages  in  which 
he  explains  religious  subjects  as  he  would  have  them  stated  to  the  common 


Origcn's  Allegories.  1(J5 

people  ;  and  because,  in  tliese  passages,  he  states  divine  trutlis  just  as  tho 
Scriptures  and  the  common  preachers  of  Christianity  do,  they  thiniv  liis  bolder 
and  more  artificial  statements  should  be  amended  so  as  to  agree  with  the 
former;  and  they  err  greatly  by  confounding  his  exterior  doctrines,  suited  to 
common  apprehension,  with  his  interior  expositions,  which  he  intended  only  for 
the  ears  of  learned  men.  And  those  who  accuse  him  of  errors,  argue  from  the 
passages  in  which  he  explains  and  accounts  for  the  Christian  doctrines  on  tlie 
principles  of  philosophy.  This  they  have  a  right  to  do;  yet  they  fall  into  two 
mistakes :  Firi^t,  they  conclude  from  these  passages  that  Origen  drew  away 
Christians  from  the  ancient  and  simple  religion  of  the  earlier  times,  and  plunged 
them  in  a  sea  of  empty  speculation  ;  which  was  but  partially  true.  For  he  did 
not  aim  to  overthrow  the  ancient  and  simple  religion  of  the  previous  ages,  which 
he  himself  taught  and  recommended;  but  he  wished  the  supervisors  and  doctors 
of  the  Christian  church  to  have  a  more  profound  knowledge,  and  to  be  able, 
when  occasion  required  it,  to  explain  rationally  that  simple  religion.  Secondly: 
they  suppose  that  the  real  views  and  opinions  of  Origen  on  religious  subjects 
may  be  learned  from  the  passages  mentioned;  which  is  sometimes  actually 
the  case,  but  not  always.  For  he  often  gives  us  his  conjectures,  rather  than  his 
fixed  opinions ;  and  in  several  passages  he  proposes  different  opinions  on  the 
same  subject.  One  thing  indeed  clearly  appears  ;  on  many  subjects  he  thought 
dilferently  from  other  Christians  ;  and  the  philosophy  which  he  followed  obliged 
him  to  think  differently ;  but  how  he  thought,  is  not,  in  many  cases,  equally 
clear;  and,  not  unfrequently,  he  did  not  know  himself  how  he  ought  to  think. 

§  XXVIII.   Origen's   allegorical  expositions.      Origeil's  new  me- 
thod of  explaining  and  illustrating  religious  truths  by  means  of 
philosophy,  required  also  a  new  method  of  expounding  the  sacred 
Scriptures.     For,  meeting  with  many  things  in  the  Scriptures 
repugnant  to  tlie  decisions  of  his  philosophy,  he  deemed  it  ne- 
cessar}^  to  devise  some  method  of  removing  this  disagreement. 
And  as  it  would  add  confirmation  to  his  opinions^  if  he  could 
make  it  appear  that  they  were  supported  by  the  authority  of 
Scripture,  some  plausible  way  was  to  be  devised  which  [p.  630.] 
should  make  his  speculations  appear  to  be  taught  in  the  holy  ora- 
cles.    Therefore,  taking  up  the  ancient  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees 
and  Essenes,  which  also  he  had  learned  from  his  preceptor,  Cle- 
ment^ namely,  that  of  a  double  sense  in  holy  Scripture,  ho  am- 
plified and  adorned  it  so  ingeniously  that  it  afforded  him  am- 
jjlc  means  of  bending  the  sense  of  Scripture  to  suit  his  purpose, 
and  eliminating  from  the  Bible  Avhatever  Avas  repugnant  to  his 
favorite  opinions.(')     Yet  strange  as  it  may  appear,  this  same 
Origen, — who  had  offered  so  much  violence  to  the  sacred  books, 
and  almost  subverted  their  true  meaning, — resolutely  undertook 


166  Century  III.— Section  28. 

and  most  patiently  accomplished  an  incredible  labor  in  aid  of 
tbose  who  wish  to  investigate  the  literal  sense  of  scripture,  and 
thus  produced  an  enduring  monument  of  his  industry,  in  what 
is  called  his  llexapla.  And  so,  frequently,  those  who  disagree 
with  every  body,  also  disagree  with  themselves ;  and  having 
magnificently  extolled  something,  are  found  tacitly  disapproving 
and  censuring  it.Q 

(1)  Tliose  who  wish  to  stigmatize  the  memory  of  Origen,  represent  him  as 
the  autiior  and  inventor  of  the  allegorical  mode  of  interpreting  the  Scriptures  : 
and  they  account  it  one  of  his  principal  faults,  and  a  great  stain  upon  liis  clia- 
racter.  His  patrons,  on  the  contrary,  and  particularly  Huet,  deny  that  he  was 
the  author  of  this  mode  of  interpretation  ;  and  they  demonstrate  that  not  only 
Jews,  but  Christians  also,  before  the  days  of  Origen,  recommended  the  study 
of  allegories,  both  by  precept  and  by  their  example  :  and  they  are  angry  at  the 
ancient  and  modern  assailants  of  Origen,  who  criminate  him  for  following  the 
example  of  his  precursors;  which  was  only  a  minor  fault,  and  scarcely  deserv- 
ing much  rebuke.  In  my  opinion,  both  his  accusers  and  his  vindicators  go  too 
far.  It  is  very  certain  that  the  Jews,  and  among  them  the  Pharisees  especiaMy 
and  Essenes,  before  the  birth  of  our  Saviour,  believed  that  in  the  language  of 
the  Bible,  besides  the  sense  which  is  obvious  to  the  reader,  there  is  another  more 
remote  and  recondite,  concealed  under  the  words  of  Scripture.  And  it  is 
equally  certain  that  Aristoibulus,  and  others,  and  especially  that  celebrated  Alex- 
andrian Jew,  Philo,  many  of  whose  works  have  come  down  to  us, — did  labor 
to  deduce  and  to  confirm  the  precepts  of  the  philosophy  they  embraced,  from 
and  by  the  books  of  Moses  and  the  prophets.  And,  finally,  it  is  manifest  that 
this  mode  of  explaining  the  holy  Scriptures  was  much  approved  and  practised  by 
the  Christian  teachers,  before  Origen  was  born  ;  and  those  masters  of  the  Alex- 
[p.  631.]  andrian  school,  Panta^nus  and  Clement,  (the  latter,  Origen's  preceptor) 
did  tread  in  the  steps  of  Philo ;  and  they  taught  their  disciples,  according  to 
his  example,  to  believe  that  the  elements  of  all  philosophical  truth  are  interwo- 
ven into  the  history  and  the  laws  of  the  sacred  books.  Origen  therefore  had 
for  his  precursors  many  men  of  high  character ;  and  he  was  not  the  first  who 
brought  into  the  church  the  study  of  either  sacred  allegories  in  general  or  phi- 
losophical allegories  in  particular.  And  this  conduces  not  a  little  to  diminish 
his  f;iult.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  manifest  that  he  did  not  keep  himself 
within  the  bounds  which  his  precursors  had  placed  around  this  thing ;  but  he 
allowed  himself  much  greater  liberties  than  the  Christian  doctors  before  him 
had  deemed  allowable.  This  he  himself  testifies.  For  he  states  repeatedly, 
that  he  had  incurred  the  odium  of  many  by  his  mystical  interpretations,  and 
that  he  was  accused  of  violating  the  dignity  of  the  holy  Scriptures.  In  his 
iliirteenth  Homily  on  Genesis,  sec.  3.  (Opp,  tom.  ii.  p.  95.)  he  maintains  that 
Isaac, — who  digged  the  wells  which  the  Philistines  filled  up,  (Gen.  xxvi.  15.) — 
was  an  emblem  of  those  interpreters  who  pass  by  the  literal  meaning  and 
isearch  for  arcane  senses  in  the  sacred  volume ;  and  that  the  Philistines  repre- 


Ongens    Allegories.  |(^7 

Bented  the  persons  wlio  will  never  go  beyond  the  historic  sense  of  scripture. 
Qui  sunt  isti,  {PhUhlini)  qui  terra  puteos  replent?     Illi  sinedubio,  qui  in  letre 
terrenarn  et  carnalem  intelli,i]:entiam  poiiunt,  et  spiritalem  ac  niysticuni  I'hiudunt, 
lit  iiequo  ij)si  bibaiit,  neque  alios  bibore  permittant.     From  tliis  exposition  he 
takes  occasion    to  inveigh  severely  against  those  who  condemned  his  allegori- 
cal interpretations.     Unusquisque  nostrum,  qui  verbum  Dei  ministrat,  puteum 
fodit,  et  aquam  vivam   quaerit,  ex  qua  refieiat  auditores.     Si  ergo  incipiam  et 
ego  veteruui  dicta  discutere  et  sensum  in  eisquaerere  spiritalem,  si  eonatus  fuero 
velamen  legis  amovere,  et  ostendere  allegorica  esse  quae  scripta  sunt,  fodio  qui- 
dein  puteos,  sed  statim  mihi  movebunt  calunmias  amici  litterae  et  insidlabuntur 
milii,  inimicitias  continuo  et  persecutiones  parabunt,  veritatem  negantes  stare 
posse  super  terram.     (By  lerram,  he  means  the  literal  sense.)     Sed  nos  si  Isaac 
pueri  sumus,  puteos  aqua?  viva)  diligamus  et  fontes,  a  litigiosis  et  calnmniato- 
ribus  recedamus,  et  relinquamus  eos  in  terra,  (i.  e.  in  the  literal  sense,)  quam 
diligant.     Nos  vero  nunquara  cessemus  puteos  aquse  vivae  fodiendo.     (i.  e.  will 
never  cease  to  follow  after  allegories.) — A  passage  not  unlike  this  occurs  in  his 
seventh  Homily  on  Levit.  sec.  4.  p.  223,  224.  where  he  enters  upon  a  discussion 
respecting  clean  and  unclean  animals  and  meats,  with  great  caution,  not  to 
afford  weapons  to  his  opposers.     De  cibis  qui  per  umbram  dicuntur,  ascenda- 
mus  ad  eos,  qui  per  spiritum  veri  sunt  cibi.    Sed  ad  ha3C  investiganda  scripturse 
divinaj  testimoniis  indigemus,  ne  quis  putet,  (amant  enim  homines  exacuere  lin- 
gus  suas  ut  gladium)  ne  quis,  inquam,  putet,  quod  ego  vim  fiiciam  scripturia 
divinis,  et  ea,  qua2  de  animalibus  in  lege  referuntur,  ad  homines  traham,  [p.  632.] 
et  de  hominibus  haec  dicta  esse  confingam.     Fortassis  enim  dicat  quis  audito- 
rum:  cur  vim  facis  Scripturae  ?     Animalla  dicuntur,  animalia   intelligantur. — 
How  came  it,  I  ask,  that  Origen,  by  searching  for  mystical  senses  of  scripture, 
incurred  odium  in  an  age  when  all  the  Christian  doctors,  either  wholly  over- 
looking or  but  slightly  regarding  the  literal  sense,  fondly  pursued  allegories? 
Beyond  a  doubt  it  must  have  arisen  from  this,  that  Origen  introduced  many  in- 
novations into  this  mode  of  interpretation,  and  gave  new  and  unheard  of  rules 
concerning  it.     Certainly,  he  would  have  had  no  enemies,  if  he   had  merely 
affirmed,  what  no  one  then  called  in  question,  that   in  addition  to  the  sense 
which  the  words  of  Scripture  convey,  another  sense  latent  in  the  things  describ- 
ed, is  to  be  diligently  sought  for.     This  will  be  manifest,  if  we  consider  who 
were  the  men  that  inveighed  so  bitterly  against  Origen's  allegories  after  he  was 
dead:  I  refer  to  Eustatius,   Epiphanius,  Jerome,  Augustine,  and  many  others. 
AH  these  were  themselves   Allegorists,  if  I  may  use  that  term ;  and  would  un- 
doubtedly have  condemned  any  man,  as  a  great  errorist,  vvho  should  have  dared 
to  impugn  the  arcane  sense  of  Scripture,  or  to  censure  the  deriving  both  doc- 
trines and  precepts,  and  the  knowledge  of  future  events,  from  the  narratives 
and  laws  contained  in  the  Bible.     There  must,  therefore,  necessarily,  have  been 
something  new  and  unusual  in  Origen's  exegetics,  which  appeared  to  them  per- 
nicious and  very  dangerous.     Otherwise,  they  would  have  regarded  iiis  system 
of  interpretation  as  beautiful  and  perfectly  correct. 

These  things   being  so,  it  was   not  altogether  wrong  to  call  Origen  the  au~ 
ikor  of  the  allegoric  interpretations:  and  it  becomes  an  im])ortinit  inquiry,  what 


168  Centimj  III.— Section  28. 

were  those  additions  made  by  him  to  the  doctrine  of  allef^ories,  which  other 
believers  in  a  double  sense  of  scripture  deemed  altogether  inadmissible.  The 
first  and  chief  was,  that  he  pronounced  a  great  part  of  the  sacred  books  to  be 
void  of  meaning  if  taken  literally,  and  that  only  the  things  indicated  by  the 
words  were  the  signs  and  emblems  of  liigher  objects.  The  Christians  who  had 
previously  followed  after  mystic  interpretations,  let  the  truth  of  the  sacred 
narratives  and  the  proper  sense  of  the  divine  laws  and  precepts  remain  in  full 
force ;  but  he  turned  much  of  the  sacred  history  into  moral  fiibles,  and  no  small 
part  of  the  divine  precepts  into  mere  allegories.  I  would  not  say,  that  this  cor- 
rupt mode  of  interpretation  originated  with  Origen ;  I  suppose  rather,  that  be- 
fore him,  some  among  the  Jews  rejected  the  grammatical  sense  of  their  law, 
and  followed  only  a  moral  and  hidden  sense  of  it.  For  I  perceive  that  P]iilo,m 
his  book  de  Migratione  Ahrahami,  (0pp.  tom.  i.  p.  450.  ed.  Angl.) — notwithstand- 
ing he  himself  sometimes  seems  to  disregard  almost  wholly  the  literal  sense, 
yet  severely  censures  a  certain  class  of  men,  who  entirely  disregarded  the  laws 
of  Moses,  and  held  only  to  a  mystical  interpretation  of  them  :  for  example,  they 
believed  that  all  Moses'  injunctions  concerning  circumcision,  should  be  under- 
stood of  the  excision  of  our  lusts  and  passions;  and  under  this  cover,  they 
[p.  633.]  spurned  the  letter  of  the  law  :  but  Fhilo  admonishes  them,  distinctly, 
that  the  mystical  interpretation  of  the  law  should  be  so  pursued,  as  to  leave  in- 
violate the  dignity  and  authority  of  the  literal  import  of  tl.e  word.  He  says; 
"EjTei  ytif  d/ufoTepcjv  S7ri(UgX«'&"iii'at>  ^«r«o"sws  n  tcjv  dipavCiv  dn^i&io-Tipas  x-ai  ra/xias  twit 
9avtgwv  dviiTixiirTov.  They  ovght  to  regard  both,  searching  critically  for  the  noji-oppa- 
renl  (the  remote  sense),  and  preserving  the  manifest  unassailed.  Of  the  Therapeiitcc 
I  say  nothing;  because,  what  Philo  tells  us  of  their  allegories,  in  his  book  de  Vita 
Theorelica,  does  not  appear  to  me  sufficiently  perspicuous,  to  justify  a  positive 
decision  that  they  rejected  the  literal  import  of  the  law.  But  among  Ciiristians, 
there  were  none,  before  Origen,  who  adopted  the  opinion  that  many  parts  of  tho 
scriptures  were  destitute  of  any  literal  meaning.  And  hence  it  was,  that  when 
Origen  ventured  boldly  to  assert  this  doctrine,  voy  many  resisted  it,  and  very 
justly  feared,  that  the  truth  and  authority  of  religion  itself  would  be  much  en- 
dangered, if  the  people  were  told  that  many  things  narrated  in  the  Bible  never 
took  place,  and  that  many  things  were  commanded  which  must  be  understood 
far  otherwise  than  the  words  indicated.  And  it  appears  strange,  that  a  man 
of  so  much  discernment  should  not  see,  that  those  very  heretics,  the  Gnostics, 
for  instance,  whom  he  sought  to  confute  by  this  mode  of  interpretation,  might 
very  conveniently  use  it  for  overthrowing  the  entire  history  of  the  life  and 
death  of  Christ,  the  truth  of  which  they  denied.  But  I  suspect,  that  Origen  be- 
came accustomed  to  this  bold  exegesis,  in  the  same  school  in  which  he  learned 
philosophy.  For,  those  well  informed  on  the  subject,  know  that  all  the  disci- 
ples of  Am7nonius  interpreted  Homer,  Hesiod,  and  the  entire  history  of  the  pa- 
gan deities,  in  the  very  same  manner,  in  which  Origen  taught  his  followers  to 
interpret  a  large  part  of  the  Bible.  Nearly  allied  to  this  first  fault,  was  another; 
namely,  that  he  lauded  immoderately  the  recondite  and  mystical  sense  of  scrijv 
ture,  and  unreasonably  depreciated  the  grammatical  or  iiistorical  sense.  The 
latter  he  compared  to  earth,  mud,  the  body,  and  other  things  of  little  value; 


Orlgens  Allegories.  IGi) 

but  the  former  he  compared  to  the  soul,  heaven,  gold,  and  the  most  prceioua 
objects.  By  such  representations  he  induced  the  expositors  of  scripture,  to 
think  little  about  the  literal  sense  of  passages,  and  to  run  enthusiastically  after 
the  sublimer  interpretations.  It  was  very  different  with  the  other  Christian 
doctors  who  possessed  good  sense.  Although  they  highly  valued  the  mystical 
sense,  yet  they  placed  an  equal  value  on  the  grammatical  and  historical :  nay, 
they  made  the  latter  the  foundation  and  basis  of  the  former :  whence  it  would 
follow,  that  no  inquiry  after  the  arcane  and  moral  sense  should  be  made,  until 
the  literal  meaning  is  carefully  and  accurately  ascertained.  As  the  stability 
and  authority  of  the  Christian  religion  depend  on  the  truth  of  the  history  given 
us  in  the  Bible,  and  as  the  true  forms  and  grounds  both  of  its  doctrines  and 
precepts  are  to  be  learned  from  the  proper  sense  of  the  words  of  scripture  ;  it 
is  manifest,  that  this  religion  is  equally  harmed,  by  him  who  makes  no  [p.  634.] 
account  of  the  literal  sense,  and  by  him  who  considers  the  words  to  have  no 
meaning. 

Again,  it  was  indeed  not  altogether  a  new  thing,  and  yet  it  was  a  thing  un- 
usual and  offensive  to  many,  that  Origen  sought  to  derive  from  the  scriptures 
by  means  of  allegories,  that  philosophy  which  he  had  embraced  ;  and  that  he 
believed,  the  philosophical  grounds  of  the  Christian  doctrines  were  exhibited, 
though  somewhat  obscurely,  by  the  sacred  writers.  Tiiose  who,  up  to  that 
time,  had  sought  for  allegories  in  the  scriptures,  had  found  there  only  religious 
or  sacred  allegories ;  i.  e.  such  as  referred  to  Christ,  to  Antichrist,  to  the  state 
of  the  church,  and  to  the  duties  of  Christians;  but  Origen,  following  the  exam- 
ple of  Philo  Judfeus,  whom  he  was  taught  by  his  master  Clement  to  follow  as 
a  guide,  endeavored  to  make  a  large  part  of  the  Bible  teach  the  dogmas  of  the 
philosophers.  And  this  was  the  more  offensive  to  Christians,  because  many  of 
them  still  continued  to  regard  philosophy  as  a  pestilent  thing,  and  to  be  for 
ever  kept  out  of  the  church.  Origen  was  led  into  this  fault,  not  merely  by  the 
example  of  Philo,  but  also  by  the  doctrine  of  his  preceptor.  Ammonias,  respect- 
ing the  harmony  between  philosophy  and  the  Christian  religion  ;  the  adoption 
of  which  doctrine,  would  necessarily  lead  him  to  carry  philosophy  into  the  holy 
scriptures.  Among  the  dogmas  of  his  acquired  philosophy,  one  of  the  more 
considerable  was,  that  noted  one  of  the  Platonic  school  respecting  a  two-fold 
world,  a  lower  and  an  upper,  or  a  visible  and  an  invisible,  a  corporeal  and  a 
spiritual;  and  of  the  correspondences  of  things  in  this  xislble  world,  wWh  the 
things  of  the  invisible  or  conceived  world.  Considering  this  doctrine  as  most 
certain,  he  transferred  it  entire  to  the  holy  scriptures ;  and  therefore  he  affirm- 
ed, that  whatever  the  inspired  writers  tell  us  respecting  changes  and  occur- 
rences in  this  lower  and  visible  world,  relates  also  to  the  affairs  and  the  history 
of  the  upper  and  invisible  world.  Of  this  doctrine  we  shall  say  more  hereafter. 
But  it  being  then  altogether  novel  and  strange  to  the  ears  of  Christians,  it 
could  not  fail  to  excite  great  complaints  among  those  attached  to  the  ancient 
Christian  simplicity. — Now,  as  all  the  opinions  we  have  mentioned,  were  dis- 
pleasing to  most  Christian  teachers,  so  the  rules  of  interpretation  introduced 
by  Origen  to  advance  them,  could  not  but  displease  many,  and  be  rejected  not 
only  as  novel,  but  also  as  injurious  to  the  scriptures  and  to  their  author.     Be- 


170  Century  Ill—Section  28. 

fore  the  times  ofOrigen,  the  investigation  of  scriptural  allegories  was  altoge- 
tiier  unsettled,  or  regulated  by  almost  no  laws  or  fixed  principles.  And,  there- 
fore, when  he  attempted  to  subject  it  to  fixed  rules,  founded  on  his  own  opi- 
nions, he  might  be  accounted,  and  he  actually  was,  an  innovator. 

As  to  the  causes  which  induced  Origen  to  amplify  and  to  systematize  the 
allegoric  mode  of  interpreting  scripture,  it  must  be  admitted,  in  the  first  place, 
that  much  was  due  to  the  excessively  fecund  genius  of  the  man,  to  the  custo- 
mary practice  among  the  Egyptians,  to  his  education,  to  the  instruction  of  his 
[p.  635.]  preceptors,  and  to  the  example  both  of  the  philosophers  whom  he 
admired,  and  of  the  Jews,  especially  Philo.  But  in  addition  to  these  external 
and  natural  causes,  as  they  mny  be  called,  there  were  others  originating  from 
his  own  deliberate  judgment :  and  among  the  latter,  some  were  not  dishonora- 
ble, or  unworthy  of  a  religious  teacher  desirous  of  advancing  the  cause  of  Chris- 
tianity. First,  he  hoped  that  the  Jews  would  more  readily  be  persuaded  to 
embrace  Christianity,  if  certain  portions  of  the  Old  Testament  were  explained 
mystically  and  allegorically.  For  he  supposed  certain  prophecies,  which,  if  con- 
strued literally,  would  not  refer  to  Christ,  were  an  obstacle  to  the  Jews'  em- 
bracing Christ;  but  that  if  these  prophecies  were  explained  mystically,  and  no 
regard  paid  to  the  literal  sense,  the  Jews  might  be  more  ready  to  believe  that 
all  that  the  ancient  prophets  foretold  concerning  the  Messiah  actually  referred 
to  Jesus  of  Nazareth. — Secondly,  he  supposed  that  the  class  of  heretics  called 
Gnostics,  the  Basilidians,  the  Valentinians  and  others,  could  not  be  completely 
put  down  and  confuted,  except  by  the  admission  of  allegories  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. For  these  sects,  in  order  to  prove  that  the  supreme  God,  the  Father 
of  our  Saviour,  was  a  different  being  from  him  who  created  this  world  and 
caused  (he  Old  Testament  to  be  written,  cited  many  passages  from  the  Mosaic 
laws,  from  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  and  from  the  historical  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  which  they  considered  as  unworthy  of  the  majesty  and  holiness 
of  the  supreme  God,  and  as  indicative  of  a  degree  of  weakness  and  wickedness. 
And  as  Origen  despaired  of  solving  these  objections,  he  thought  they  must  be 
avoided  by  resorting  to  allegories,  and  that  all  the  passages  with  which  the 
Gnostics  reproached  God  and  his  friends  and  ministers,  must  be  construed  in  a 
mystical  sense  worthy  of  the  divine  character.  These  two  reasons,  Origen 
himself  repeatedly  mentions  ;  and  especially  in  his  book  de  Principii.%  (Lib.  ii. 
c.  8.  p.  164.  &c.)  But  if  he  had  been  influenced  by  no  reasons  besides  these, 
his  system  of  interpretation  would  have  extended  to  only  a  very  small  portion 
of  the  scriptures;  and  it  would  not  have  greatly  offended  his  fellow  Christians. 
For  others  before  him,  in  their  disputes  with  the  Jews  and  the  Gnostics,  had 
betaken  themselves  to  allegories  as  their  castle.  There  were  therefore  other 
reasons  for  the  course  he  pursued,  and  reasons  of  a  more  exceptionable  charac- 
ter. Among  these  the  first  undoubtedly  was,  his  attachment  to  his  system  of 
philosophy.  For,  perceiving  that  many  of  the  facts  and  declarations  of  the  Bi- 
ble conflicted  with  the  principles  of  his  philosophy,  he  felt  the  necessity  of 
resorting  to  some  means  of  escaping  their  force  ;  and  he  could  find  none  more 
easy  and  effectual  than  this  assumption :  Whatever  in  the  sacred  books  con- 
flicts with  my  philosophy,  must  not  be  taken  literally,  but  must  be  converted 


Origcns  Allegories.  171 

into  allegory.  Safely  posted  behind  this  rule,  he  could  easily  resist  whatever 
the  scriptures  might  oppose  to  his  opinions,  and  whatever  the  [p.  636.] 
philosophers  might  urge  against  Christianity.  This  we  see  exemplified  in  his 
book  against  Celsvs. — Kindred  with  this  was  another  reason,  derived  from  the 
harmony  between  Christianity  and  philosophy.  As  we  have  before  seen,  he 
believed  that  the  grounds  of  all  the  doctrines  taught  in  the  scriptures,  might  be 
deduced  from  the  principles  of  philosophy.  And  closely  connected  with  this 
opinion,  was  another,  namely,  that  these  philosophical  grounds  of  Christian 
doctrines,  were  all  tauglitin  the  scriptures,  not  indeed  explicitly,  but  with  some 
obscurity  and  as  it  were  covertly  ;  and,  therefore,  they  can  be  discovered,  and 
drawn  forth  by  the  sagacious,  especially  by  those  whom  God  favors  with  the 
gift  of  language,  and  of  the  so-called  knowledge.  Having  assumed  this,  he  was 
obliged  to  add,  that  those  philosophical  grounds  of  Christian  doctrines,  are 
wrapt  up  in  figures,  images,  and  facts,  in  the  sacred  volume  :  for  if  we  adhere 
to  the  lileral  meaning,  that  harmony  between  religion  and  philosophy  can  not 
be  found.  To  these  two  causes,  a  third  may  be  added;  namely,  that  Platonic 
dogma,  which  was  firmly  established  in  his  mind,  that  there  are  two  corres- 
ponding worlds,  this  visible  world  in  which  we  dwell,  and  corresponding  with 
it  an  upper  or  celestial  world.  And  this  dogma  led  him,  in  construing  the  Bib- 
lical history  of  nations  and  countries,  besides  the  literal  import  of  the  words 
which  refer  to  this  visible  world,  to  seek  for  another  meaning  applicable  to  the 
world  above. — He  held  two  other  opinions,  both  false,  yet  in  his  view  unques- 
tionable. First,  that  it  was  greatly  for  the  honor  and  glory  of  Christianity, 
that  the  holy  scriptures,  which  are  its  source,  should  be  accounted  a  book  dif- 
fering fundamentally  from  all  human  compositions,  one  full  of  various  and 
recondite  mysteries.  And  that  if  God  is  to  be  considered  as  the  author  of  the 
book,  there  must  necessarily  be  and  appear  in  it,  a  portion,  an  effect,  or  some 
exhibition,  of  that  manifold  and  arcane  wisdom  which  is  in  God.  To  this  pw- 
pose  he  frequently  expresses  himself  distinctly.  Thus  in  his  fifteenth  Homily 
on  Genesis,  (Opp,  torn.  ii.  p.  99.)  he    says :  Observandum  est  nobis  scripturas 

sanctas  legentibus scripturam  divinam  non  (ut  plurimis  videtur)  inern- 

dito  et  agresti  sermone  compositam,  (i.  e.  not  in  the  manner  in  which  men  are 
accustomed  to  communicate  their  thoughts  to  one  another,)  sed  secundum  dis- 
ciplinam  divinae  eruditionis  (i.  e.  sapiential)  aptatam,  ncque  tantum  historicis 
narrationibus,  quantum  rebus  et  sensibus  mysticis  servientem.  His  first  Ho- 
mily on  Exod.  (Opp.  tom.  ii.  p.  129.)  commences  thus:  Videtur  mihi  unusquis- 
que  sermo  divinae  scriptura3  similis  esse  alicui  seminum,  cujus  natura  hacc  est, 
ut  cum  jactum  fuerit  in  terram,  regeneratum  in  spicam,  vel  in  quamcunque 
aliam  sui  generis  speciem,  multipliciter  diffundatur,  et  tanto  curaulatius,  quanto 
vel  peritus  agricola  plus  seminibus  laboris  impenderit,  vel  beneficium  terrre 
foecundioris  indulserit.  -  -  Ita  et  hie  sermo,  qui  nunc  nobis  ex  divinis  volumi- 
nibus  recitatus  est,  si  peritum  inveniat  et  diligentem  colonum,cum  primo  attnctu 
videatur  exiguus  et  brevis,  ut  coeperit  excoli  et  spiritaliter  tructari,  crescit  [p.  637.] 
in  arborem,  in  ramos,  et  in  virgulta  diffunditur.  -  -  Unus  sermo  ex  his,  (pue  roci- 
tata  sunt,  in  tantum  posset  longe,  lateque  difFimdi,  si  tamen  et  auditoruni  c-a|).i- 
citas  sincret,  ut  vix  nobis  ad  explicandum  suflio*  !ret  dies.     And,  {de  Principiis 


112  Centunj  IlT.— Section  28. 

L.  iv.  see.  26.  p.  189.)  lie  s.iys  :  Ad  qii:im  regulani  etiam  divinarum  littevanira 
intelligentia  retinenda  est,  quo  scilicet  ea,  quae  dicuntur,  non  pro  vilitate  ser- 
monis,  sed  pro  divinitate  sancti  spirit  us,  qui  easconscribi  inspiravit,  censeantur. — 
Secondly,  In  the  objections  of  the  enemies  of  Christianity,  there  are  not  a  few- 
things  which  can  in  no  way  be  fully  cleared  up  and  confuted,  unless  we  aban- 
don the  historical  and  grammatical  sense,  and  resort  to  allegories.  Exempliti- 
cations  will  be  given  hereafter.  Origen  was,  by  his  philosophy,  disabled  for 
answering  satisfactorily  all  the  objections  adduced  against  Christianity  by  the 
pagan  priests,  the  philosophers  and  the  Jews.  The  pious  man  could  have  done 
it  easily,  if  he  had  been  willing  to  philosophise  in  a  more  liberal  manner  than 
the  precepts  of  his  masters  allowed.  And,  therefore,  to  maintain  the  honor  of 
that  religion  which  he  considered  equally  true  with  his  philosophy,,  he  went  over 
to  the  side  of  the  AUcgorists  ;  not  perceiving,  that  in  this  way  the  objections  of 
the  adversaries  were  not  confuted,  but  in  reality  were  only  eluded. 

Peter  Daniel  Huei  has  written  learnedly  on  Origen's  doctrine  of  allegories, 
in  his  Origeniana,  Lib.  ii.  Quasst  .xiii.  p.  170.  :  but  he  writes  confusedly,  and 
not  so  much  for  the  purpose  of  explaining  and  elucidating  the  subject,  as  for 
obscuring  it,  and  for  excusing  and  defending  its  author.  He  is  therefore  an 
unsate  guide  to  an  inquirer  on  this  subject.  The  system  of  Origen  is  much 
better  stated  and  explained  by  a  learned  French  writer  whose  name  I  have  not 
learned,  in  a  French  work  entitled,  The  Literal  and  the  Mystical  sense  of  holy 
Scripture,  according  to  the  views  of  the  Fathers.  Paris,  1727.  8vo.  I  have  not 
been  able  to  obtain  the  book ;  but  Charles  de  la  Rue,  the  editor  of  Origen,  has 
given  a  lucid  epitome  of  it,  supported  by  citations  from  Origen.  in  his  Preface 
to  Origen's  Works,  vol.  ii. — I  will  attempt  to  state  Origen's  views,  more  pre- 
cisely than  learned  men  have  hitherto  done,  to  correct  their  mistakes,  to  sup- 
ply their  deficiencies,  and  to  exhibit  this  whole  system  of  biblical  interpreta- 
tion, so  far  as  it  can  be  ascertdned,  in  the  most  correct  and  intelligible  manner 
within  my  power. 

Origen's  doctrine  of  allegories  may  be  fitly  divided  into  two  parts;  the  Jirst, 
embracing  his  opinions  respecting  the  diflTerent  senses  of  the  holy  scriptures ; 
and  the  second,  containing  rules  for  distinguishing  the  diflTerent  senses  of  scrip- 
ture, and  for  determining  in  what  passages  the  literal  sense  must  be  abandoned, 
and  in  what  passages  a  mystical  sense  may  be  coupled  with  the  literal  sense. 
[p.  638.]     The  first  part  comprises  the  following  rnoposiTioxs. 

Prop.  I.  Holy  scripture  is  like  a  man.  As  a  man,  according  to  Plato,  con- 
sists of  three  parts,  a  body,  a  sensitive  soul,  and  a  rational  soul;  so  also  the 
sacred  books  have  a  threefold  sense,  a>body  or  a  historical  and  grammatical 
sense,  a  soul  or  a  moral  sense,  and  lastly  a  spirit  or  a  mystical  and  spiritual 
sense.  Origen's  Jiflh  Homily  on  Lcvit.  sec.  5.  (0pp.  torn.  ii.  p.  209.) : 
Triplicem  in  scripturis  divinis  intelligenti?e  inveniri  ssepe  diximus  modum,  his- 
toricum,  moralem,  et  mysticum.  Unde  et  corpus  inesse  ei,  et  animam,  ac  spi- 
ritum  intelleximus.  De  Principiis  L.  iv.  sec.  2.  (0pp.  tom.  i.  p.  168.)  :  Sicut 
homo  constare  dicitur  ex  corpore  et  anima  et  spiritu  :  ita  etiam  sancta  scrip- 
tura,  quae  ad  hominum  sojutem  divina  Inrgitione  concessa  est.  Many  more  pas- 
sages might  be  adduced  from  his  writings ;  but  these  are  suflScient. 


Ori gal's   Allegories.  173 

Prop.  II.  As  the  flesh  or  body  is  the  lowest  and  moat  ignoble  pnvt  of  man  ; 
so  also  the  literal  sense  of  scripture,  which  is  like  the  body,  is  far  below  or  inf^j- 
rior  to  the  moral  and  the  mystical  senses.  And  as  the  body  often  induces  even 
pious  and  good  men  to  commit  sin ;  so  also  the  proper  sense  of  the  words  of 
scripture  may  lead  incautious  readers  into  errors  and  faults.  Origen's  Slromafa 
Lib.  X.  as  quoted  by  Jerome,  Lib.  iii.  Comm.  in  Galatas  cap.  v.  (llieronymi  0pp. 
tuin.  i.  p.  41.)  :  Non  valde  cos  juvat  Historia  Scripturse,  qui  sic  earn  intelligunt, 
uti  scriptaest.  Quis  enim  non  doeebitur  servire  luxuriac,  et  fornicationem  habere 
pro  nihilo,  quum  Judam  ad  meretricem  legerit  ingredientem,  et  Patriarchas  ha- 
buisse  multas  pariter  uxores?  Quomodo  non  ad  idololatriam  provocabilur, 
(jui  sanguinem  taurorum  et  caeteras  Levitici  victimas  non  plus,  quam  quod  in 

littera  sonat,  piitaverit  indicare  ? Hroreses  qiioque  magis  de  carnali  scrij). 

turffi  intelligentia,  quam  de  opere  earnis  nostrae,  ut  plurimi  a3stimant,  substit- 
erunt.  Nee  non  invidiam  et  ebrietatem  per  legis  litteram  discimus.  Jnebriatur 
Noe  post  diluvium,  et  Patriarchae  apud  fratrum  Joseph  in  ^Egypto.  Sed 
in  commessationes  in  Regnorum  libro  scriptee  sunt.  -  -  -  Multorum  ergo 
malorum  occasio  est,  si  quis  in  scripturaj  carne  permaneat.  Quae  qui  fecerent, 
regnum  Dei  non  consequentur.  Quamobrem  spiritum  seripturae  fructusque 
quaeramus,  qui  non  dicuntur  esse  manifesti.  -  -  -  Quum  base  nobis  aperta  fuc- 
rint,  ralionahiUorem  liabehimiis  fidem,  (Origen  sought  after  a  rational  religion, 
I.  e.  one  accordant  with  his  philosophy,  which  he  deemed  to  be  accordant  with 
reason,)  et  correctos  mores  temperantia  comitabitur.     De  Principiis  L.  iv.  sec. 

8,  9.  p.  165.:  Simpliciores  nonnulli,  qui  se  de  ecelesia  esse  gloriantur de 

Deo  suspicantur,  quae  ne  de  homine  quidem  crndelissimo  ct  injustissimo  cogi- 
tare  fas  sit.  lis  autem  omnibus  nulla  falsarum  opinionum,  nulla  impietatis  et 
stolidorum  de  Deo  sermonum  caussa  esse  alia  videtur,  quam  scriptura  [p.  639.] 
non  secundum  sensum  spiritualem  intellecta.  Many  other  passages  might  easily 
be  collected. 

Pi-op.  Ill  Yet  the  literal  sense  is  not  altogether  worthless  ;  for  to  common 
people  and  the  more  ignorant,  it  may  be  of  use  to  lead  them  to  virtue  and  sal- 
vation. De  Principiis  L.  iv.  (sec.  12.  p.  169.)  :  Exposilionem  litteralem  etiam 
per  se  utilem  esse  posse,  testatur  eorum  multitudo,  qui  ingenue  et  simpliciter 
crediderunt.  (sec.  14.  p.  173.):  Ipsum  quoque  spiritualium  indumentum,  id 
est,  quod  in  scripturis  corporeum  est,  in  multis  non  est  inutile,  sed  multos  po. 
test,  quantum  capaces  sunt,  meliores  elTicere. 

Prop.  IV.  But  those  who  possess  a  little  more  wisdom  and  intelligence 
than  the  vulgar,  ought  to  seek  after  the  soul  of  the  sacred  scriptures,  passing 
beyond  their  body  or  literal  sense  :  that  is,  they  should  search  for  the  moj-al 
sense,  which  accompanies  the  grammatical  ;  or,  they  should  apply  all  they  read 
to  the  mind  and  its  moral  improvement. 

Prop.  V.  And  those  who  have  attained  to  perfection,  or  to  the  highest  de- 
gree of  piety,  should  ascend  higher  still,  and  pry  with  all  their  might  into  the 
spirit  of  the  sacred  books,  or  into  their  spiritual  and  mystical  sense.  These  two 
last  precepts,  and  also  the  one  preceding,  are  placed  beyond  all  doubt,  by  the 
following  passage,  {De  Principiis  L.  iv.  sec.  2.  ]).  168.):  Tripliciter  ergo  dcs- 
cribere  oportet  in  animasua  unumquemque  divinarum  intelligentiani  litterarum, 


174  Century  Ill.-^Sectioii  28. 

id  est,  (1)  ut  simpllciores  qiiique  aedificentur  ab  ifso,  ut  ita  dixerim,  corpoie 
scripturarum  :  sic  eniiu  appelhimus  communem  istum  et  historialem  intellec- 
tuni :  (2)  si  qui  vero  aliquantuni  jam  proficere  coeperunt,  et  possunt  amplius  ali- 
quid  intueri,  ab  ipsa  scripturcc  anima  aedificentur.  (3)  Qui  vero  perfecti  sunt, 
ni  tales  ab  ipsa  spirituali  lege,  qure  umbram  habet  futurorum  bonorum,  tan- 
quam  a  spiriiu  aedificentur.  These  are  the  rules  which  Origen  invariably  fol- 
lows in  his  Commentaries  and  Homilies  on  the  sacred  books,  yet  extant.  He 
either  wholly  omiis,  or  but  slightly  touches  on  the  historical  or  literal  sense, 
and  hastens  on  to  the  moral  or  mystical  senses  almost  as  soon  as  he  names  the 
passages. 

Prop.  VI.  The  moral  sense  of  the  Scriptures  consists,  partly,  in  doctrinal  in- 
structions, respecting  those  exercises  or  changes  in  the  state  of  the  mind  of  which 
both  good  and  bad  men  may  be  the  subjects ;  and  partly  in  precepts,  by  which 
both  the  exterior  and  the  interior  life  of  a  Christian  man  should  be  governed. 
Origen  nowhere  defines,  (so  far  as  I  know,)  what  he  means  by  the  moral  sense 
of  Scripture  :  but  the  correctness  of  the  definition  above  given  is  demonstrable 
from  the  numberless  examples  of  this  sense  which  he  adduces.  Thus  Moses 
tells  us,  (Exod.  i.  6,  7.)  that  after  the  death  of  Joseph,  the  Children  of  Israel 
multiplied  exceedingly  in  Egypt.  And  to  this  statement  Origen  attaches  a  mo- 
ral sense,  (First  Homily  on  Exod.  ^  4.  0pp.  torn.  ii.  p.  131.)  :  In  te  si  moriatur 
Joseph,  id  est,  si  mortificationem  Christi  in  corpore  tuo  suscipias  et  mortificea 
membra  tua  peccato  (so  in  the  printed  copies;  but  I  think  it  should  read 
[p.  640.]  peccaii,)  tunc  in  te  multiplicabuntur  filii  Israel.  Filii  vero  Israel  sensus 
bnni  et  spiriiuales  accipiuntur.  Si  ergo  sensus  carnis  mortificentur,  sensus  spi- 
ritus  crescunt  et  quotidie  emorientibus  in  te  vitiis,  virtutum  nuraerus  augetur. 
So  the  king  of  Egypt  commanded  the  midwives  to  kill  the  Hebrew  male  chil- 
dren, but  to  let  the  females  live.  (Exod.  i.  15,  16.)  And,  according  to  Origen, 
{Homil.  ii.  in  Exod.  5  1.  p.  133.)  the  edict  of  Pharaoh  contained  this  moral 
sense:  Princeps  hujus  mundi  seu  cacodaemon  vult  sensum  rationabilem,  qui 
potest  coelestia  sapere,  necare ;  quaecunque  vero  carnis  sunt  vivere,  et  qu?e  ad 
materiara  pertinent  corporalera  augeri.  Cum  ergo  videris  homines  in  voluptati- 
bus  et  deliciis  vitam  ducere,  in  istis  scias  quod  rex  ^Egypti  masculos  necat  et 
vivificat  foeminas.  In  Matt.  xv.  21,  22.  our  Saviour  is  said  to  have  gone  into 
the  borders  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  where  a  Canaanitess  of  that  country  besought 
him  to  heal  her  daughter.  According  to  Origen  (torn.  xi.  in  Matth.  §  16.  0pp. 
torn.  iii.  p.  503.)  the  moral  sense  of  the  story  is  this:  Unusquisque  nostrum 
dum  peccat,  versatur  in  finibus  Tyri  et  Sidonis,  migrans  vero  a  vitio  ad  virtu- 
tem  exit  e  finibus  Tyri  et  Sidonis  et  ad  fines  partis  Dei  pervenit.  Atque  huic 
Christus,  quemadmodum  mulieri  Chananacffi,  occurrit  quasi  in  partes  Tyri  et; 
Sidonis  veniens. — These  examples  show  that  a  large  part  of  the  philosopliical 
instructions,  which  Origen  supposed  to  be  latent  in  the  scriptures,  are  contained 
in  the  moral  sense;  while  others  of  them  are  contained  in  the  mystical  sense, 
which  we  are  next  to  consider. 

Prop.  VH.  Of  the  mystical  sense,  Origen  himself  gives  the  following  definition, 
(de  Principiis,  Lib.  iv.  §  13.  p.  170.):  Spiritalis  explanatio  (Trvsy^anxw  J'tnyna-ts) 
est  talis,  si  quis  potest  ostendero  quorum  coelestium  exemplaribus  et  umbrae 


Origeiis  Allegories,  175 

deserviunt  hi,  qui  secundum  carnem  judaei  suntet  quorum  futurorum  umbram 
lex  habet  et  si  qua  liiijusmodi  in  scripturis  Sanctis  repcriuntur,  vol  cum  requiri- 
tur  qure  sit  ilia  sapientia  in  m^stcrio  abscondita  (1  Cor.  ii.  7.)  et  occasionem 
nobis  pra^stat  intelli^a-ntia},  ut  possimus  advertere,  quorum  figurae  crant  istn,  qua; 
illis  (Judaiis)  aecidcbant.  A  part  of  this  definition  is  pers})ieuous  enouii^h :  he 
thinks  emblems  and  predictions  of  things  pertaininnr  to  Christ  and  the  church 
are  held  up  to  view  in  the  law  of  Moses  and  in  the  Old  Testament  history. 
Therefore,  whoever  refers  to  Christ,  his  acts  and  offices,  and  to  the  church,  what- 
ever in  the  literal  sense  refers  to  the  Jewish  affairs,  discovers  and  follows  the 
mystical  or  allegorical  sense.  Yet  a  part  of  this  definition  cannot  be  fully 
understood  by  those  ignorant  of  Origen's  peculiar  opinions.  Thus  much  indeed 
every  attentive  reader  will  perceive,  that  what  Origen  calls  the  mystical  sense 
is  twofold.  For  he  says:  (1)  Judaeos  securidura  carnem  coelestium  exemplari- 
bus  et  umbree  deservire.  The  Greek  is:  Troiusv  tTtovfavioiv  C-KUtlyfjcari  kHi  [p.  641.] 
crjud  01  Kara  a-apx-a  loi/eTa/ot  t'KaTptvav.  (Heb.  viii.  5.)  Therefore  the  ceremonies  of 
the  law  are  shadows  of  heavenly  things.  He  adds :  (2)  Legem  tamen  simul 
umbram  futurorum  habere  :  that  is,  the  law  is  a  shadow  of  Christ's  deeds  and 
of  the  events  concerning  him  in  this  world.  These  two  classes  of  things  differ, 
just  as  the  celestial  and  terrestrial,  heavenly  and  earthly  things  differ.  Again, 
he  says  (1)  that  in  the  scriptures  a  certain  wisdom  is  hid  in  a  mystery,  as  Paul 
tells  us ;  and  (2)  that  what  things  happened  to  the  people  of  the  Jews,  were 
figures  of  certain  future  things ;  and  these  two  classes  of  things  also,  he  so 
clearly  distinguishes,  that  they  cannot  be  confounded.  But  all  this  is  msufficient 
to  make  the  views  of  Origen  fully  understood;  and  they  must  be  more  distinctly 
exhibited  in  the  following  more  precise  definition. 

Prop.  VIII.  The  mystical  sense  of  scripture  is  that  which  presents  to  us  the 
nature,  state,  and  history  of  the  spiritual  or  mystical  world.  Besides  this  cor- 
poreal or  material  world,  there  is  another,  a  spiritual  world,  beyond  the  reach 
of  our  senses;  and  this  other  world  is  also  twofold,  celestial  and  terrestrial; 
and  the  terrestrial  may  also  be  called  th.e  mystical  world.  This  mystic  terres- 
trial world  is  the  church  of  Christ  on  earth,  the  xaivH  xrtVjc.  See  his  Comm. 
on  John,  (tom.  ix.  vol.  ii.  0pp.  p.  147,  edit.  Huetii.  The  recent  Benedictine 
edition  has  not  yet  reached  this  commentary)  :  Mundus  autem  et  ornamentum 
mundi  est  ecclesia.  And, after  a  few  words;  'Xiyio-^oo  <roivZv  « ^«xX«<7-ra  xoV^ao?,  o 
TivTTo  Toy  <T(OTYpos(fa)ri^iTai.  Dicatur  itaque  ecclesia  mundus, quando  a  Servntore 
illustratur.  The  other,  the  celestial  or  spiritual  world,  is  in  the  upper  regions; 
and  it  corresponds  in  all  its  parts  with  the  lower  or  corporeal  world.  For  the 
world  in  which  we  now  dwell  was  foshioned  after  the  model  of  the  world 
above.  See  his  Comm.  on  John,  (tom.  xix.  vol.  ii.  0pp.  edit.  Huetii,  p.  288. 
I  give  the  Latin  only,  which  agrees  accurately  with  the  Greek.)  :  Est  alius 
mundus  praeter  hunc  visibilem  et  sensibilem  mundum  (rdv  J'tiKvu/utvov  nat  dtv^-^rdy 
xoTfAov)  constantem  e  ccelo  et  terra,  vel  e  ccelis  et  terra,  in  quo  sunt  qu<c  viden- 
tur:  Et  hoc  totuin  est  alius  mundus,  inaspectabilis  mundus,  qui  non  videtur, 
mundus  intelligibilis  (vo<r/uoi  doparos,  KCiO-fAo^  Iv  ^Xinofxtvos,  Kai  VoHTOi  KO<rfACi,)  cujlis 
visione  et  pulchritudine  fruontur  qui  puro  sunt  corde,  quo  liujus  mundi  intelli- 
gibilis visioneantea  bene  parati  penetrant  vel  ad  ipsum  Deum  videndum,  qua- 


176  Century  IIL—Section  28. 

tonus  vidcri  natura  potest  Deus.  That  world  beyond  our  ken,  which  we  can 
ontemplate  only  in  thought,  is,  as  before  stated,  pertVctly  like  to  this  cor- 
poreal world;  and  of  course  it  is  divided  into  provinces,  just  as  this  world  is. 
Therefore,  as  there  is  a  terrestrinl  Palestine,  Jerusalem,  Tyre,  Sidon,  Arabia, 
[p.  642.]  &:c.  so  the  upper  or  celestial  world  has  similar  places  and  provinces. 
The  inhabitants  of  the  celestial  world  are  souls  or  spirits;  its  kings  and  magis- 
trates are  the  angels,  both  the  good  and  the  bad.  Whatever  events  occur  in  this 
world,  the  same  occur  in  the  world  above;  and  there  is  a  perfect  similitude  be- 
tween these  worlds.  This  doctrine  he  nowhere  explains  more  fully  than  in  hia 
Principia,  (L.  iv.  $  20,  &c.  p.  181,  &c.)  He  there  tirst  demonstrates,  as  he  sup- 
poses, that  there  is  a  celestial  Judea,  a  celestial  Jerusalem,  a  celestial  Jewish 
people.  Elevare  quodammodo  ex  terra  et  erigere  intelligentiara  nostram  volens 
Bunctus  Apostolus  ait  in  quodam  loco  :  Videle  Israel  secundum  carnem,(l  Cor. 
X.  18.)  Per  quod  signiiieat  utique  qut)d  alius  Israel  sit,  qui  non  sit  secundum 
carnem,  sed  secundum  spiritum.  -  -  -  Si  ergo  sunt  queedam  anim»  in  hoc  mun- 
do  (superiori)  qua3  Israel  appellautur,  et  in  coelo  ci vitas  quaedam,  quae  Jerusa- 
lem nominatur,  consequens  est,  ut  has  civitates,  qua;  gentis  Israeliticoe  esse  di- 
cuntur,  Metropolia  liabeant  Jerusalem  coelestem,  et  secundum  haec  de  omni 
Judasa  intelligamus,  de  qua  putamus  etiam  prophetas  mysticis  quibusdam  nar- 
rationibus  loquutos.  -  -  Quajcunque  ergo  vel  nnrrantur  vel  prophetantur  de 
Jerui^alem  -  -  utique  de  ilia  civitate,  quam  (Paulus)  dicit  Jerusalem  coelestem 
et  de  omnibus  locis  vel  urbibus,  qua3  terra;  sanctte  urbes  esse  dicuntur, — dicta 
esse  intelligere  debemus.  Then  dilating  the  idea,  he  extends  it  <o  the  whole 
earth :  Si  ergo  prophetias,  qua  de  Judea  et  Jerusalem  et  de  Juda  et  Israel  ct 
Jacob  prophetata3  sunt,  dum  non  a  nobis  carnaliter  intelliguntur,  mysteria  quai- 
dam  divina  significant:  consequens  utique  est  etiam  illas  prophetias,  qua3  vel 
de  ^gypto  vel  de  ^Egyptiis,  vel  de  Babylonia  vel  de  Babyloniis,  et  Sidone  ac 
Sidoniis  prolataj  sunt,  non  de  Ji^gypto  ista,  qua?,  in  terris  posita  est,  vel  Baby- 
lone  vel  Tyro,  vel  de  Sidone  intelligi  prophetatas.  -  -  -  -  Sicut  coelestis  est  Je- 
rusalem et  Judaja,  et  gens  sine  dubio  qua3  habitat  in  ea,  qufe  dicitur  Israel,  ita 
possibile  est  etiam  vicina  his  loca  esse  quaedam,  quae  vel  iEgyptus,  vel  Baby- 
lon, vel  Tyrus,  vel  Sidon  appellari  videantur,  eorumque  locorura  principcs,  at- 
que  animae  si  quae  in  illis  habitant  locis,  ^gyptii,  Babylonii,  Tyrii  ac  Sidonii 
appellantur.  From  this  doctrine  he  infers,  that  whatever  occurrences  there  are 
in  this  lower  world,  the  same  also  exist  in  the  world  above ;  and  the  strange 

vagaries  he  indulges  on  this  subject  will  be  noticed  hereafter. This  strange 

fiction  is  an  exemplification  of  the  degree  in  which  Origen  could  accommodate 
his  theology  to  his  philosophy.  For,  allhough  he  would  persuade  his  readers 
that  he  derived  the  doctrine  of  a  twofold  world,  celestial  and  terrestrial,  from 
Paul's  writings,  (e.  g.  1  Cor.  x.  18.  Rom.  ii.  28,  29.  Gal.  iv.  26.  Heb.  xii.  22, 
&c.)  ;  yet  it  is  manifest  that  this  doctrine  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the 
opinion  of  Plato  and  the  Plalonists,  respecting  the  eternal  procession  of  the 
[p.  643.]  images  and  patterns  of  all  things  from  the  divine  intelligence,  and  of 
the  formation  of  this  visible  world  after  the  similitude  of  these  so-called  ideas. 
Captivated  with  this  philosophy,  his  prolific  fancy  led  him  to  amplify  this  doc- 
trine, and  apply  it  to  the  holy  scriptures.     Those  acquainted  with  Platonism 


Orlgetis  Allegories.  177 

know,  tliat  the  Platonic  school,  professedly  following  tiieir  master,  maintained 
that  from  all  eternity  there  issued  forth  from  the  divine  intelligence  the  images 
of  all  things ; — that  these  images  were  substantial  beings,  immutable  in  their 
nature,  and  distinct  from  the  divine  mind  from  which  they  issued ; — that  God 
looked  on  these  eternal  ideas  while  forming  tiiis  corporeal  world,  just  as  a  pain- 
ter keeps  his  eyes  constantly  fixed  on  the  objects  he  would  represent  in  colors; 
— that  therefore  all  corporeal  and  finite  things  are  but  copies  of  those  eternal 
images; — that  all  truth  and  science  reside  in  these  images  or  ideas;  that  minds 
wrapped  up  in  matter  discover  only  the  obscure  shadows  of  them. ; — but  yet, 
by  reliection  and  study,  they  may  gradually  become  able  to  look  upon  and 
contemplate  the  eternal  ideas  themselves ;  and  this  Plato  supposed  to  be  the 
perfection  of  alL knowledge.  All  these  notions  Origen  adopted  as  his  own; 
and  hence  that  fantastic  dream  of  the  resemblance  of  this  world  to  the  world 
above,  and  of  the  creation  of  the  former  after  the  pattern  of  the  latter. 
But  I  do  not  know  that  any  of  the  Platonists  went  so  far  as  to  declare,  that  all 
the  things  which  occur  among  men,  occur  also  in  the  heavenly  world ;  that 
souls  there  live  as  men  do  on  earth ;  that  in  heaven  angels  are  rulers,  and  carry 
on  wars,  just  as  kings  and  princes  do  here  below.  At  any  rate  this  is  clear, 
that  Origen  by  holding  these  opinions  was  obliged  to  assert,  that  whatever 
the  sacred  books  narrate  respecting  the  countries,  the  nations,  the  kings,  and 
the  occurrences  of  this  world,  must  be  equally  true  of  the  heavenly  world  ;  so 
that  the  history  of  our  world  is  also  the  history  of  the  celestial  world  and  of  its 
inhabitants.  And  this  he  most  distinctly  asserts  in  his  Principia,  (L.  iv.  §  23. 
p.  186.) :  Unde  consequens  videbitur,  etiam  prophetias,  qua)  de  singulis  genti- 
bus  proferuntur,  revocari  magls  ad  animas  debere,  (because  the  celestial  world 
is  more  excellent  and  noble  than  this  our  corporeal  world,)  et  diversas  mansi- 
ones  earum  coelestes.     Sed  et  historias  rerum  gestarum,  quae  dicuntur  vel  genti 

Israel,  vel  Jerusalem,  vel  Judajae  accidisse, magis  ista  conveniebant  illis 

gentibus  animarum,  quae  in  coelo  isto,  quod  transire  dicitur,  habitant,  vel 
etiara  nunc  habitare  putanda3  sunt.  In  his  eleventh  Homily  on  Numbers,  (^  4,  Opp. 
tom.  ii.  p.  307.)  he  says :  Puto,  quia  sicut  quajdam  nomina  vel  gentium  vel  prin- 
cipum  in  Scripturis  posita  videmus,  quae  absque  uUa  dubitatione  ad  malos  an- 
gelos  et  ad  virtutes  contrarias  referantur :  ita  etiam  ea,  quae  de  Sanctis  viris 
et  gente  religiosa  scribuntur,  ad  sanctos  Angelos  et  ad  benignas  de-  [p.  644.] 
beraus  referre  virtutes. 

Prop.  IX.  As  there  is  a  twofold  mystical  world,  the  one  here  below,  the 
church,  and  the  other  above,  the  examplar  after  which  this  material  and  corpo- 
real world  was  created ;  so  there  is  also  a  tioofold  mystical  sense  of  scripture, 
the  one  relating  to  the  church,  and  the  other  to  the  celestial  world.  That  which 
relates  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  or  the  church,  is  called  the  allegorical  sense ; 
that  which  relates  to  the  celestial  world  may  be  called  the  anagogical  sense. 
Yet  Origen  does  not  always  understand  by  the  allegorical  sense,  that  sense  of 
the  Bible  which  exhibits  the  transactions  of  Christ  and  his  ambassadors  in 
this  lower  world ;  he  sometimes  uses  the  term  in  a  broader  accepation ;  but 
still,  of  the  great  number  of  examples  of  the  allegorical  sense  contained  in  his 
writings,  most  of  the  specimens  we  have  adduced  serve  to  illustrate  the  defini- 
tion we  have  given.  13 


178  Century  Ill.—Section  28. 

Proji.  X.  The  mystical  sense  pervades  the  entire  scriptures ;  so  that  there 
is  not  a  declaration,  in  the  inspired  books,  in  which  there  is  not  something  latent 
that  refers  either  to  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ,  or  to  the  celestial  world.  See 
his  first  Homily  on  Exocl.  {\  4.  Opp.  torn.  ii.  p.  131.)  :  Ego  credens  verbis  Do- 
mini mei  Jesu  Christi  in  lege  et  pruphetis  icta  qnidem  unum  aut  unum  apicem 
non  puto  esse  mysteriis  vacuum,  nee  puto  aliquid  horum  transire  posse,  nisi 
omnia  iiant.  He  frequently  inculcates  this  idea  in  various  forms;  and  he  ex- 
tends it,  not  only  to  the  Old  Testament,  but  also  to  the  New,  which  is  of  equal 
excellence  and  worth  with  the  Old.  See  Priiicipia  L.  vi.  §  14,  &c.  (p.  171,  172.) 
In  a  passage  §  16.  (p.  174,)  he  most  explicitly  declares  the  New  Testament  to 
be  equally  spiritual  and  mystical  with  the  Old  Testament :  Non  solum  autem 
de  his,  qua)  usque  ad  adventum  Christi  scripta  sunt,  ha3c  Spiritus  sanctus  pro- 
curavit,  sed  utpote  unus  atque  idem  spiritus  et  ab  uno  Deo  procedens,  eadem 
similiter  etiam  in  Evangelistis  et  Apostolis  fecit.  Nam  ne  illas  quidem  narra- 
tiones,  quas  per  eos  inspiravit  absque  hujuscemodi,  quam  supra  exposuimus  sa- 
pientise  suae  arte  contexuit.  Hence,  in  his  eleventh  Homily  on  Num.  ^  1.  (Opp. 
tom.  ii.  p.  305.)  he  thus  expresses  himself:  Requiro,  si  sunt  aliquce  (in  scriptura 
eacra)  quae  et  secundum  litteram  quidem  stare  possint,  necessario  tamen  in  eis 
etiam  allegoriam  (here  he  used  the  word  allegoria  in  the  broader  sense)  requi- 
rendam.  And  a  little  after :  Alia  habent  quidem  secundum  litteram  veritatera 
sui,  recipiunt  tamen  utiliter  et  necessorio  etiam  allegorieum  sensura. — It  is  there- 
fore beyond  all  controversy,  that  those  learned  men  err,  who  say  that  Origen  be- 
lieved many  passages  of  the  Bible  to  have  no  other  than  the  literal  sense :  hia 
opinion  was  quite  otherwise.  Nor  must  we  assent  to  Charles  de  la  Rue,  and 
to  the  learned  men  whom  he  follows,  in  saying,  {Orig.  Opp.  tom,  ii.  Praef.  p.  11.)  : 
[p.  645.]  "  Sometimes  only  the  literal  sense  is  admissible,  sometimes  only 
the  moral  sense,  and  sometimes  only  the  mystical."  The  man  cannot  have 
read  Origen  with  due  attention  who  can  entertain  such  an  opinion. 

Prop.  XL  Yet  hoth  the  mystical  senses  are  not  found  in  all  passages :  some 
have  only  the  allegorical  sense,  and  some  only  the  anagogical.  That  such  was 
Origen's  opinion  his  expositions  clearly  show ;  for  from  many  passages  of  scrip- 
ture explained  by  him,  he  deduces  only  a  meaning  applicable  to  the  church  of 
Christ  on  earth  ;  but  sometimes  he  rises  to  the  celestial  or  upper  world. 

Prop.  XII.  In  like  manner  the  moral  sense  pervades  the  whole  inspired 
volume ;  nor  is  there  a  single  passage  in  which  we  have  not  some  precept  for 
regulating  the  mind  and  directing  the  conduct. 

Prop.  Xin.  It  is  not  so  with  the  grammatical  or  historical  sense.  For 
there  are  many  passages  of  the  Bible  in  vvhich  the  words  are  destitute  of  all 
literal  meaning.     Of  his  many  declarations  to  this  effect  this  one  may  sullice, 

de  Principiis,  L.  iv.  §  12.  (Opp.  torn.  i.  p.  169.)  'Eisr/  rtvegypaipal  rd  a-cjjua~i)idv  ovfa- 
ucjg  i^cutrai eTtv  ottov  oiovil  r»v  -^v^iiv  Kai  to  -rviv/ua  tUs  y[>a<p»?  /miva  ^pyi  ^UTilv 

Sunt  scripturse  quaedam,  quae  nihil  habent  corporeum  (i.  e.  no  literal  meaning): 
e.st  ubi  sola  veluti  anima  (a  moral  sense,)  et  spiritus  (a  mystical  sense)  quae- 
rendus  est. 

Prop.  XIV.  Therefore  all  declarations  of  scripture  are  of  tuw  kinds;  some 
have  only  two  senses,  a  moral  and  a  mystical,  the  latter  either  allegorical  or 


Or  iff  ens   Allcr/orie^.  179 

analogical ;  others  have  three  senses,  a  grammatical  or  liter:'.l,  a  moral,  and 
a  mystical.  But  there  is  no  passage  whatever  that  has  only  uiie  single  mean- 
ing. In  hh  Frincipia  L.  iv.  sec.  12.  (p.  169,  &c.)  Origen  demonstrates  this 
principle  by  a  pas>age  in  John's  Gospel  (eh  ii.  6.)  ;  presenting  us  at  the  same 
time  with  a  specimen  of  allegorical  interpretation.  John  tells  us,  that  at  the 
marriage  in  Cana,  there  were  six  water  })ots,  set  for  the  Jewish  purification, 
containing  two  or  three  firkins  e:.ch  ;  and  Origen  gives  this  mystical  interpre- 
tation of  the  passage:  Quibns  sub  involucro  designatur  eos,  (jui  apud  Aposto- 
lum  in  occulto  Judaei  sunt,  (Rom.  ii.)  purificari  per  scripturas,  aliquando  binas 
metretas  capientes,  id  est,  ut  sic  dicam,  animam  (the  moral  sense)  et  spirituni 
(the  mystical  sense):  aliquando  terras  (trinas?)  quum  nonnulhe  propter  prie- 
dicta,  (i.  e.  the  moral  and  mystical;  which  are  always  present,)  habeant  etiam 
corpus  (the  literal  sense)  quod  aedificare  potest. 

Prop.  XV.  The  literal  sense  is  obvious  to  all  attentive  readers.  To  discover 
the  moral  sense,  some  more  intelligence  is  requisite ;  and  yet  it  is  not  very  re- 
condite and  difiicult. 

Prop.  XVI.  But  the  mystical  sense,  none  but  wise  men,  and  such  as  are  di- 
vinely instructed,  can  with  certainty  discover.  Origen,  agreeably  to  the  custom 
of  that  age,  considered  the  ability  to  interpret  the  holy  scriptures  mystically,  to 
be  one  of  those  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  are  conferred  on 
but  few  Christians.  And  as  he,  from  modesty,  dared  not  lay  claim  to  that  gift, 
he  generally  brings  forward  his  mystical  expositions  with  diflidence  [p.  646.] 
and  caution  :  and  sometimes  he  tells  us,  that  he  conjectures  or  supposes,  rather 
than  decides  and  pronounces  confidently.  In  his  fftk  Homily  on  Levit.  sec.  1. 
(0pp.  tom.  ii.  p.. 205.)  he  says:  Sicut  cognationem  sui  ad  invicem  gerunt  visibila 
et  invisibilia,  terra  et  ca3lum,anlma  et  caro,  corpus  et  spiritus,  ct  ex  horum  con- 
junctionibus  constat  hie  mundus;  ita  etiam  sanctam  Scripturam  credendum  est  ex 
invisibilibus  et  visibilibus  constare  :  veluti  (1)  ex  corpore  quodam,  litterse  scilicet, 
qua3  videtur:  et  (2)  animd,  sensus  intra  ipsam  deprehenditur  ;  et  (3)  spiritu. 
secundum  id  quod  quaidam  etiam  in  se  coelestia  teneat;  ut  Apostolus,  quia  ex- 
emplari  et  umbrce  deserviunt  coelestium.  This  passage,  though  not  much  con- 
nected with  the  point  we  are  considering,  I  have  thought  fit  to  transcribe,  be- 
cause it  not  only  exhibits  clearly  and  distinctly  his  doctrine  of  a  threefold  sense 
of  scripture,  but  it  also  shows,  that  he  believed  he  had  a  philosophical  reason 
for  holding  that  doctrine,  derived  from  the  analogy  of  things.  We  will  now 
accompany  him  as  he  proceeds ;  Quia  ergo  ha3c  ita  se  hiifbent,  invocantes  De- 
um,  qui  fecit  scriptur.u  animam  et  corpus  et  spiritum  :  corpus  quidem  iis,  qui 
ante  nos  fuerunt,  animam  vero  nobis,  spiritum  autem  iis,  qui  in  futuro  ha?redi- 
tatem  vitae  aeternae  consequentur,  per  quam,  (T  think  it  should  read  per  quem^ 
i.  e.  spiritum)  perveniant  ad  regna  coelestia ;  earn  nunc  quara  diximus  legis  ani- 
mam requiramus,  quantum  ad  pracsens  interim  spectat.  Aescio  autem  si  possio- 
mus  eliam  ad  spiritum  ejus  ascendere  in  his,  quoe  nobis  de  sacrificiis  lecta  sunt. 
This  passage  is  very  noticeable  ;  b(  cause  from  it  we  learn,  that  Origen  believ- 
ed, (1)  That  a  largi^  portion  at  le.ist  of  the  ceremonial  laws  of  Moses  contained 
a  /t7e7-aZ  meaning,  pertaining,  however,  exclusively  to  the  Jews  ;  in  which  he  was 
correct ;  (2)  That  in  addition  to  this  meaning,  there  was  also  in  the  Mosaic 


180  Centiinj  III.— Section  28. 

laws  a  Trioral  sense,  and  that  this  sense  is  discoverable  by  all  Christian  teachers 
if  they  will  give  th'^ir  attention  to  it:  (3)  But  the  mystical  sense  of  these  laws 
is  not  equally  discoverable  by  all,  but  only  by  those  who  are  chosen  unto  life 
eternal  and  are  divinely  illuminated.  Therefore  (4)  he  doubts,  whether  he  was 
qualified  to  investigate  this  abstruse  sense  of  scripture.  After  several  other 
things  which  are  not  to  our  purpose,  when  he  would  exhibit  the  mystical  import 
of  certain  things  pertaining  to  the  laws  concerning  sacrifices,  he  again  acknow- 
ledges, explicitly,  that  without  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  could  effect  nothing.  He 
says,  (sec.  5.  p.  209.)  Quia  potius,  secundum  spiritalem  sensum,  quern 
Spiritus  donai  ecclesicB,  videamus,  quod  sit  istud  sacrificium,  quod  coquatur 
in  clibano.  vel  quis  iste  clibanus  intcUigi  debeaf?  Sed  ubi  inveniam?  -  -  Do- 
minum  meum  Jesum  invocare  me  oportet,  ut  quaerentem  me  faciat  invenire,  et 
[p.  647.]  pulsanti  aperiat,  ut  inveniam  in  scripturis  clibanum,ubi  possum  coquere 
sacrificiummeum,utsuscipiat  illud  Deus.  Thus  he  discourses  with  sutHcien.t  acu- 
men and  subtilty  respecting  this  furnace.  Yet,  see  how  timidly  and  modestly  he 
closes  the  discourse:  Non  dubito  multa  esse,  quae  nos  Meant  et  sensum  nos- 
trum  superent.  Non  enim  sumus  illius  meriti,  ut  et  nos  dicere  possimus: 
Nos  autem  sensum  Christi  hahemus.  (1  Cor.  ii.  16.)  Ipse  enim  solus  estsensus, 
cui  pateant  universa,  quae  in  legibus  sacrificiorum  intra  litterae  continentur  ar- 
canum. Si  enim  mererer,  ut  daretur  mihi  sensus  Christi,  etiam  ego  in  his  dice- 
rem:  Utsciamus  qucc  a  deo  donata  sunt  nobis,  qucc  et  loquimur.  (1  Cor.  ii.  12.) 
Similar  passages  abound  in  all  his  expository  works  on  the  sacred  books.  On 
the  moral  sense  which  he  elicits,  he  is  sufficiently  positive ;  but  his  mystical 
interpretations,  he  obtrudes  upon  no  one,  always  professing  to  be  a  learner,  and 
ready  to  be  taught  better  views  by  any  one  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  may  enlighten. 
Pro-p.  XVII.  Although  a  man  may  be  divinely  endued  with  the  gift  of  in- 
terpreting the  scriptures  mystically,  yet  it  will  be  presumption  and  folly  for  him 
to  expect  to  understand  all  the  arcane  senses  of  the  sacred  volume.  For  the 
scriptures  contain  an  immense  treasury  of  divine  truths,  only  a  small  part  of 
which  can  be  grasped  by  minds  enclosed  in  material  bodies.  Even  the  Apos- 
tles of  Jesus  Christ  were  not  able  to  understand  all  the  mysteries  of  the  sacred 
books.  Origen  discourses  on  this  point,  referring  equally  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  New,  in  his  Principia,  L.  iv.  sec.  10.  &.c.  He  says:  Evangelio- 
rum  accuratus  sensus,  utpote  Christi  sensus,  eget  gratia.  -  -  Apostolorum  au- 
tem epistolae  cuinam  sagaci  et  perito  sermonum  judici  videantur  apertae  ac  intel- 
lectu  faciles,  cum  illic  infinita  prope  sint,  quae  veluti  per  foramen  maxima  et 
quamplurima  intelligendi  materiam  amplam  praebeant  1  Quae  cum  ita  se  habe- 
ant  et  prope  innumeri  labantur,  non  sine  periculo  quis  pronunciaverit,  se  legen- 
do  intelligere,  quae  indigent  clavi  inlelligentiae,  quam  Salvator  penes  legispcri- 
tos  esse  ait.  Passing  over  many  other  remarks,  we  will  cite  from  sec.  26.  p.  188. 
the  passages  in  which  he  the  most  clearly  expresses  his  views :  Si  quis  cu- 
riosus  explanationem  singulorum  requirat,  veniat  et  nobiscum  pariter  audiat, 
quomodo  Paulus  Apostolus  per  Spiritum  sanctum  -  -  altitudinem  divinae  sapi- 
entiae  ac  scientiae  scrutans,  nee  tamen  ad  finem,  et,  ut  ita  dixerim,  ad  intimam 
cognitionem  praevalens  pervenire,  desperatione  rei  et  stupore  clamat  et  dicit. 
O  altitude  divitiarum  sapientiae  et  scientiae  Dei.     (Rom.  xi.  33.)     If  this  text 


Or  iff  en'' s  Allegories.  181 

appears  to  us  irrelevant  to  the  subject,  it  should  be  remembered,  that  Origcn 
supposed  Paul  usually  designates  tlie  myUical  sense  of  scripture  by  the  terms 
wisdom  and  knowledge.  Quantumcunque  enim  quis  in  scrutando  promoveat  et 
studio  intentiore  profieiat,  gratia  qiioque  Dei  adjutus,  sensusque  [p.  648.] 
illuminatus,  ad  perfectum  finem  eorum,  quae  requiruntur,  pervenire  non  poterit 
nee  omnis  raeus  quae  creata  est,  possibile  habet  uUo  genere  comprehendere 
sed  ut  iiivenerit  quaedam  ex  his  quae  quaeruntur,  iterum  videt  alia,  qune 
qiKU'renda  sunt.  Quod  elsi  ad  ipsa  pervenerit,  multo  iterum  plura  ex  illis, 
quae  requiri  debeant,  pervideliit. 

Prop.  XVIII.  Both  diflidence  and  discretion  are  highly  necessary,  in 
searching  after  that  mystical  sense  of  scripture  which  relates  to  the  celestial  or 
upper  world,  or  in  applying  what  the  scriptures  relate  of  the  people  and  the  af- 
fairs of  this  world,  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  above.  Because  this,  the 
anagogical  sense,  God  has  very  obscurely  set  forth  in  the  sacred  books,  rather 
covering  it  up  and  concealing  it  than  actually  revealing  it.  In  his  Princijpia^ 
(L.  iv.  sec.  23.  p.  186,)  he  says  :  Si  quis  vero  evidentes  et  satis  manifestas  as- 
sertiones  horum  de  Scripturis  Sanctis  exposcat  a  nobis,  respondendum  est,  quia 
occultare  magis  haec  Spiritui  sancto  in  his  quae  videntur  esse  historiae  rerum 
gestarum,  et  altius  tegere  consilium  fuit,  in  quibus  descendere  dicuntur  in 
iEgyptum,  vel  captivari  in  Babyloniam,  vel  in  his  ipsis  regionibus,  quidam  qui- 

dem  humilinri   nimis  et  sub  servitio  effici  dominorum, quae  omnia,  ut  dixi- 

mus,  abscondita  et  celata  in  Scripturae  sanctae  historiis  conteguntur,  quia  reg- 
num  coelorum  simile  est  thesauro  abscondito  in  agro.  —  Hi  thesauri  ut  inveniri 
possint,  Dei  adjutorio  opus  esi,  qui  solus  potest  portas  aereas,  quibus  clausi  sunt 
et  absconditi,  confringere  et  seras  ferreas  comminuere,  quibus  prohibetur 
ingressus  perveniendi  ad  ea  omnia,  quae  in  Genesi  dediversis  animarumgeneri- 
busseripta  sunt  et  obtecta,  &c.  The  passage  is  too  long  to  be  here  transcribed. 

I  now  proceed  to  the  second  part  of  Origen's  doctrine  of  allegories. — As  he 
maintained  that  the  words  of  many  passages  of  the  Bible  are  altogether  void  of 
direct  meaning,  it  became  necessary  for  him  to  establish  some  rules  for  deter- 
mining what  passages  of  scripture  have  a  direct  or  literal  meaning,  and  what 
passages  are  destitute  of  such  meaning,  or  have  only  a  mystical  and  a  moral 
sense.     His  first  and  most  general  rule  is: 

Rule  1.  When  the  words  of  any  passage  in  either  Testament  afford  a  good 
sense,  one  worthy  of  God,  useful  to  men,  and  accordant  with  truth  and  sound 
reason, — this  must  be  considered  a  sure  sign  that  the  passage  is  to  be  taken  in 
its  literal  and  proper  sense.  But  whenever  any  thing  absurd,  folse,  contrary  to 
sound  reason,  useless,  or  unworthy  of  God,  will  follow  from  a  literal  interpreta- 
tation,  then  that  interpretation  is  to  he  abandoned,  and  only  moral  and  mystical 
senses  are  to  be  sought  for.  This  rule,  Origen  repeatedly  attempts  to  confirm 
by  the  declaration  of  St.  Paul,  (2  Cor.  iii.  6.)  For  (he  letter  killeth,  but  the  spi- 
rit givelh  life.  See  his  work  against  Cehus,  Lib.  vii.  (sec,  20,  21.  edit.  Bene- 
dict.) By  the  letter  in  this  text,  Origen  would  have  us  understand  the  literal 
sense,  and  by  the  spirit,  the  moral  and  mystical  sense ;  thus  making  the  [p.  649.1 
import  of  the  passage  to  be,  that  the  literal  sense  of  scripture  often  disturbs  the 
human  mind,  and  brings  it  into  great  difficulties;  but  the  moral  and  mystical 


182  Century  Ill—Section  28. 

seriFes  refresh  the  mind,  and  fill  it  with  faith,  liopc,  joy,  and  love  to  God  and 
man.  This  general  rule  of  Origen  may  therefore  be  thus  expressed :  When- 
ever the  letter  of  holy  scripture  killelh,  or  disturbs  the  mind;  then,  disregarding 
the  letter,  a  man  should  attend  solely  to  the  spirit,  v^'hich  gixelh  life. — In  a  gene- 
ral view,  this  rule  appears  not  wholly  unreasonable;  for  the  wisest  interpreters 
at  the  present  day,  both  take  the  liberty,  and  also  allow  others,  to  give  up  the 
literal  meaning  of  a  passnge,  and  to  resort  to  a  metaphorical,  or,  if  you  please,  a 
mystical  sense,  whenever  the  language  taken  literally  would  give  a  sense  clearly 
repugnant  to  reason,  or  contrary  to  plain  passages  of  holy  scripture.  Yet  be- 
tween these  expositors  and  Origen,  there  was  a  very  wide  difference ;  as  the 
statement  of  his  other  rules  will  show. 

Rule  II.  Consequently,  that  portion  of  sacred  history,  both  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament and  the  New,  which  narrates  things  probable,  consonant  to  reason, 
commendable,  honest,  and  useful,  must  be  supposed  to  state  f:icts,  and  of  course 
must  be  understood  literally.  But  that  portion  of  sacred  history  which  states 
actions  or  events  that  are  either  false,  or  absurd,  or  unbecoming  in  God  and 
holy  men,  or  useless  and  puerile,  must  be  divested  of  all  literal  meaning,  and  be 
applied  to  moral  and  mystical  things  in  both  the  spiritual  worlds,  Origen,  for 
reasons  hereafter  stated,  assumed  it  as  certain,  that  the  biblical  history  of  both 
Testaments  contained  many  f:ilse  statements,  statements  of  things  that  never 
did,  and  never  could,  take  place.  And  he  gives  two  reasons  why  God  intermin- 
gled many  fables  with  the  true  history  in  the  Bible.  T\\q  first  is,  that  if  people 
found  nothing  in  the  Bible  but  what  is  true,  probable,  beautiful  and  useful,  they 
would  never  think  of  going  beyond  the  literal  meaning  of  the  Bible,  and  thus 
would  entirely  neglect  the  soul  and  the  spirit  of  it.  But  now,  as  they  meet 
with  things  altogether  incredible  and  absurd,  these  ver}^  impediments  and  stum- 
bling blocks  prompt  them  to  search  for  the  sublimer  meaning.  In  his  Principia 
L.  ix.  sec.  15.  p.  173.  (as  transfated  by  Charles  de  la  Rne;  for  the  ancient  trans- 
lation of  Rufjinus  is  quite  too  free.)  Origen  thus  expresses  himself:  Verum 
quoniam  si  legis  utilitas  et  varietate  oblectans  historine  series  ubique  sese  pro- 
derct,  non  utique  credidissemus  aliud  quiddam  praeter  id,  quod  obvium  est,  in 
scripturis  intelligi  posse,  idcirco  Dei  verbum  in  lege  ac  liistoria  interponi  cura- 
vit  ofiendicula  et  impossibilia  quaedam,  ne  dictione  nihil  praeter  illecebram  ha- 
benti  deliniti,  et  nihil  Deo  dignum  addiscentes,  tandem  a  dogmatis  recedamus, 
dut  nudiie  literae  penitus  adhaerentes  nihil  divinius  percipiamus.  So  then,  if 
[p.  650.]  we  may  believe  Origen,  when  God  caused  the  sacred  books  to  be 
written,  fearing  lest  the  travellers  should  be  so  captivated  with  the  beauty  aiid 
comfort  of  a  direct  and  smooth  road,  as  to  forget  whither  they  were  travellings 
he  placed  in  their  path,  here  and  there  rocks,  ditches,  hills,  and  other  obstruc- 
tions, which  should  oblige  them  to  swerve  and  deviate  from  the  straight  for- 
ward course. — His  second  reason  is,  that  God  wished  to  instruct  men  in  all  tho 
doctrines  and  precepts  necessary  for  their  salvation,  by  means  of  sacred  history. 
But  this  object  could  not  always  be  effected  by  true  history ;  and  therefore, 
with  the  true,  he  interspersed  here  and  there  the  fiilse  and  f/ibulous,  that  men 
might  learn  what  he  wished  them  to  know,  by  means  of  fictitious  and  imaginary 
examples.     He  says:  Oportet  autem  et  istud  scire:  cum  eo  praecipue  speclet 


Orif/ens    Allegories.  183 

Dei  vorbum,  ut  in  rebus  spiritalibus  et  gcstij4  et  gercndis  scriem  declaret:  ubi 
si'cuiidiim  historiain  iiivonit  facta,  qiuc  arcauis  istis  aceommodaii  possent,  illin 
usus  est,  muliis  oceultans  abstru.siorein  sensum ;  ubi  vero  in  explananda  ilia 
fipiritalium  connexionc  non  sequebatur  certarum  quarundam  rerum  praxis,  quce 
propter  arcaniora  ante  scripta  fiierit,  scriplurae  subnexuit  historice  quod  iactuin 
non  erat,  imo  aliquando  quod  tieri  non  poterut,  quandoque  autem  quod  poterat 
quidi-m  fieri,  sed  factum  tamen  non  est.  Accidit  etiani  aliquando,  ut  paucae 
inlerjectae  sint  dictiones  veritati,  si  ad  corpus  .spcctes  non  consentanse-  The 
closing  part  of  this  passage  shows,  that  Origen  believed — (1)  That  many  por- 
tions of  the  sacred  history  are  mere  fables :  and  that  these  fables  are  of  two 
kinds;  some  have  no  semblance  of  truih,but  are  such  fictions  as  could  not  have 
been  facts;  others  have  a  verisimilitude,  and  might  have  been  facts,  yet  were 
not  so  in  reality.  (2)  Some  portions  of  the  sacred  history  arc  in  the  main 
true ;  yet  among  the  things  stated,  there  are  some  things  inserted  which  are  not 
true  but  fictitious.  By  the  aid  of  this  rule,  Origen  easily  surmounts  all  difficul- 
ties in  the  historical  parts  of  both  Testaments.  Whenever  any  fact  occurs, 
which  either  conflicts  with  the  principles  of  his  philosophy,  or  seems  to  aftbrd 
the  enemies  of  Christianity  a  ground  for  cavilling,  he  boldly  denies  the  fact,  and 
converts  i:  into  either  a  moral  or  a  mystical  fable.  All  his  Homilies  and  com- 
mentaries alford  us  examples:  we  will  cite  only  one  of  them,  from  his  Princi- 
pia  (L.  iv.  sec.  16.  p.  174.)  Quis  sanas  mentis  existimaverit  primam  et  secun- 
dam  et  tertiam  diem  et  vesperam  et  mane  sine  sole,  luna  et  stellis,  et  eam  quae 
veluti  prima  erat,  diem  sine  coelo  fuisse?  Quis  adeo  stolidus  ut  putet,  Deum 
more  hominis  agricolee  plantasse  hortum  in  Eden  ad  orientcm,  ubi  lignum  vitae 
posuerit,  quod  sub  occulos  et  sensus  caderet,  ut  qui  corporeis  dentibus  fructum 
gustasset,  vitam  inde  reciperet,  et  rursus  boni  et  mali  particeps  fieret,  qui  fruc- 
tum ex  hac  arbore  decerptum  comedissef?  Et  cum  Deus  meridie  in  paradise 
ambulare  dicitur,  et  Adam  sub  arbore  delitescere.  neminem  arbitror  [p.  651.] 
dubitare  his  figurate  per  apparentem  historiam,  qua?  taa3en  corporaliter  non 
contigerit,  qua3dam  indicari  mysteria.  --  Sed  quid  attinet  plura  dicere,  cum  innu- 
mera  ejustnodi  scripta  quidem  tanquam  gesta  sint,  non  gesta  vero,  ut  littera 
fionat,  quivis,  modo  non  plane  stipes,  colligere  possit.  Respecting  the  New 
Testament  history,  he  decides  with  equal  assurance,  discarding  all  the  caution 
and  reserve  which  he  elsewhere  rarely  neglects.  A  large  part  of  it  he  considers 
to  be  fables,  by  which  the  holy  Spirit  aims  to  instruct  us  in  recondite  mysteries. 
He  says  explicitly  :  Sexcenta  ejus  generis  in  evangeliis  observare  licet  attentius 
Icgenti,  unde  colliget  lis,  quae  secundum  literam  gesta  sunt,  alia  adtexti  esse, 
quae  non  contigerint.  In  his  comment,  on  John,  (torn.  x.  Opp.  tom.  ii.  p.  150. 
edit:  Huetiante,)  he  openly  acknowledges,  that  the  whole  history  of  the  four 
Gospels  is  full  of  statements,  either  false,  or  contradictory  to  each  other;  and 
that  there  is  no  way  left  to  defend  the  authority  and  the  divine  origin  of  these 
books, but  by  a  recurrence  to  what  he  calls  ava^a^wv.  Atl  t>)v  Tripi  to-jtuv  dXit^-itxti 
dwoKila^-ai  iv  rois  vo»Toti.  Veritatem  harum  rerum  oportet  repositam  esse  in 
his,  quae  animo  cernuntur.  He  had  just  spoken  of  the  forty  days'  conflict  of 
Christ  with  the  prince  of  hell,  and  he  said  :  AeT  t»v  J'oKouTav  S'lapufiiav  \utT^at 
J'la  T«j  dvayai-yiis.    Decet  nos  apparentem  dissonantiam  dissulvere  per  Anagogen; 


184  Century  IIL—Section  28. 

i.  e.  by  a  mystical  interpretation.  I  have  already  touelied  upon  the  causes 
which  led  liim  to  adopt  this  very  dangerous  rule  for  interpreting  sacred  history. 
They  are  obvious  to  every  attentive  reader.  The  statements  of  the  Bible  res- 
pecting the  creation  of  the  world,  the  origin  of  man,  &c.  were  contrary  to  the 
precepts  of  his  philosophy ;  and,  therefore,  he  would  sooner  deny  the  truth  of  a 
portion  of  sacred  Jiistory,  than  give  up  his  philosophy.  Again,  by  the  history 
of  the  Old  Testament,  the  Gnostics  endeavored  to  establish  their  doctrine,  that 
the  Creator  of  this  world  was  a  different  being  from  the  Father  of  Jesus  Christ; 
and  from  the  history  in  both  Testaments,  the  philosophers  drew  arguments 
against  Christianity ;  and  Origen,  not  finding  any  other  way  to  answer  them, 
concluded  to  cut  the  knot  he  could  not  untie,  by  turning  all  the  passages  which 
his  adversaries  could  use,  into  allegories. 

Rule  HI.  To  the  preceptive  and  didactic  parts  of  scripture,  the  same  princi- 
ple is  to  be  applied,  as  to  the  historical:  namely,  whatever  occurs  in  them  that 
is  good,  agreeable  to  reason,  useful,  and  worthy  of  God,  must,  beyond  all  ques- 
tion, be  construed  literally.  But  wliatever  is  absurd,  useless,  and  unworthy  of 
God,  must  not  be  taken  literally;  but  must  be  referred  to  morals  and  to  the 
mystical  world.  Origen  believed,  that  the  preceptive  and  didactic  parts  of  the 
Bible  contained  some  things,  which,  if  taken  literally,  it  was  impossible  to  be- 
lieve or  to  practice,  and  which  were  contradictory  to  sound  reason  and  philoso- 
[p.  652.]  phy.  That  he  explained  a  number  of  the  Christian  doctrines  philo- 
sophically, is  well  known,  and  has  been  already  stated.  And  such  an  exi>lana- 
tion  required  him  to  maintain,  that  the  passages  thus  explained  have  no  literal 
meaning.  Numerous  examples  for  illustration,  occur  in  his  writings.  We 
therefore  will  only  remark  briefly  on  the  preceptive  parts  of  the  Bible.  Res. 
pecting  the  laws  of  Moses,  he  utters  himself  very  harshly,  and  in  fact  extrava- 
gantly, and  almost  impiously.  In  his  seventh  Homily  on  Levit.  sec.  6.  (0pp. 
tom.  ii,  p.  226.)  he  says  :  Si  adsideamus  literse  et  secundum  hoc  vel  quod  Ju- 
daeis,  vel  id  quod  vulgo  videtur,  accipiamus  qu^  in  lege  scripta  sunt,  eruhesco 
dicere  et  confUeri,  quia  tales  leges  dederit  Dens.  Videbuntur  enim  magis  elegan- 
tes st  rationabiles  hominum  leges,  verbi  gratia,  vel  Romanorura,  vel  Athenien- 
sium,  vel  Lacedtemoniorum.  Si  vero  secundum  hanc  intelligentiam,  quam  do- 
cet  ecclesia,  accipiatur  Dei  lex,  tunc  plane  omnes  humanas  supereminet  leges, 
et  vere  Dei  lex,  esse  credetur.  De  Principiis,  L.  iv.  (sec.  17.  p.  176.):  Si  ad 
leges  etiam  Mosaicas  veniamus,  plurimae  si  eas  nude  observari  oporteat,  absar- 
dum,  aliae  imj^ossibile  prsecipiunt.  And  this  he  endeavors  to  demonstrate  by 
several  examples,  which  we  here  omit.  Respecting  his  mode  of  explaining 
the  Mosaic  laws,  we  shall  presently  speak  particularly.  The  laws  of  the  New 
Testament,  he  supposed  indeed  to  be  superior  to  those  in  the  Old  Testament, 
seeing  they  do  not  prescribe  any  rites  and  ceremonies  ;  yet  he  supposed  that 
many  of  these  laws  must  be  construed  mystically  and  allegorically.  Of  this  we 
have  evidence  in  his  Principia,  L.  iv.  (sec.  18.  p.  179.)  where  he  says:  Jam 
vero  si  ad  Evangelium  veniamus  et  similia  requiramus,  quid  a  ratione  mngis  ali, 
enum,  quam  istud  ;  Neminem  per  xiam  saluiaveritis,  (Lu.  x.  4.)  quod  Ajiostolis 
prsecepisse  Salvatorem,  simpliciores  existimant?  Et  cum  dextera  maxilla  per- 
cuti  dicitur,  res  est  a  verisimili  prorsus  abhorrens,  cum  omnis  qui  percutit,  nisi 


Origeii's  Allegories,  185 

natura  nianciis  fuerit,  dcxtora  manii  sinistram  maxillam  foriat.  Ncque  potest  ex 
Evangelio  peiripi  quo  paeto  dexter  oeeulus  oiVensioni  sit.  After  ex])lainino- 
these  things  at  some  length, lie  proceeds:  Pra3terca  Apostolus  praeeipit,  dicens; 
Circumcisus  aliquis  vocaliis  est?  noii  adducal  fnc/pulium.  (1  Cor.  vii.  18.)  Pri- 
muin,  quilibet  iiaec  abs  re  prajterque  propositum  dicere  Apostolum  videbit. 
Nam  quoDiodo  de  nuptiis  et  de  castitate  praecipiens,  non  videatur  haec  temere 
interposu  isse  ?  Secundo  vero,  quid  obesset,  si  obscoenitatis  vitandae  caussa 
ejus,  quae  ex  circumcisione  est,  posset  aliquis  revocare  praeputium  ?  Tertio, 
quod  certe  fieri  id  omni  genere  impossibile  est.  Haec  a  nobis  dicta  sunt,  ut 
ostendamus,  quia  hie  prospectus  est  Spiritus  sanctus  -  -  non  ut  ex  sola  littera 
vel  in  omnibus  ex  ea  aedificari  possimus. 

Ride  IV.  As  to  the  Mosaic  laws  in  particular,  there  are  indeed  many  o£ 
them  which  have  a  literal  meaning;  and  therefore  are  to  be  considered  as  direct 
rules  for  human  life  and  conduct.  But  there  are  many  others,  the  words  of 
which  convey  no  meaning  whatever,  and  only  the  things  indicated  by  [p.  653.] 
the  words  are  of  use  to  awaken  moral  and  mystical  thoughts  in  our  minds.  I 
will  adduce  some  examples  of  both  these  classes  of  laws,  in  Origen's  own  words. 
Of  the  former  class  he  speaks  in  liis  Principia,  L.  iv.  {\  19.  p.  180.)  ;  Quis  non 
afhrmet  mandatum  hoc,  quod  praicipit :  Honora  patrem  tuum,  et  mairem  tuam^ 
etiam  sine  ulla  spiritale  interpretatione  sufficere,  et  esse  observantibus  necessa- 
rium  ?  maxime  cum  et  Paulus  iisdem  verbis  repetens,  confirmaverit  ipsum  man- 
datum.  Quid  attinet  dicere  de  ceteris :  Non  adulterabis,  non  occides,  t^c.  Rur- 
sus  in  Evangelio  mandata  quasdam  scripta  sunt,  de  quibus  non  quteritur  sintne 
ad  litteram  observanda,  uecne?— But  it  is  not  true  as  some  learned  men  have 
believed,  and  among  them  Charles  de  la  Rue,  the  editor  of  Origen, — that  Origen 
excluded  a  mystical  sense  from  those  laws  of  Moses  which  he  believed  were  to 
be  obeyed  in  their  literal  interpretation.  A  little  after  the  quotation  just  given, 
he  adds  those  expressive  words :  Tametsi  qui  res  altius  scrutantur  componere 
possint  altitudinem  sapientise  Dei  cum  litterali  mandatorum  sensu.  A  moral  alle- 
gory he  could  not  indeed  seek  for  in  such  laws;  because  their  literal  interpre- 
tation afforded  a  moral  sense.  But  a  mystical  sense,  as  already  observed,  he 
would  attach  to  every  particle  of  the  holy  scriptures. — Of  the  latter  class  of 
laws  we  have  examples  in  the  same  work,  Q  17.  p.  176,  &c.)  as  follows:  In 
lege  Moysi  praecipitur  exterminari  quidem  omne  masculum,  quod  non  fuerit  oc- 
tava  die  circumcisum  :  quod  valde  inconsequens  est:  cum  oporteret  utique, 
si  lex  secundum  litteram  servanda  tradebatur,  juberi,  ut  parentes  punirentur,  qui 
filios  suos  non  circumciderunt.  -  -  -  Haec  verba :  Sedebitis  domi  xestrcc  singuli, 
nemo  vestrum  exeat  e  loco  suo  die  septima,  (Exod.  xvi.  29.)  non  videntur  ad  lit- 
teram posse  servari,  cum  nullum  animae  per  totum  diem  immotum  sedere 
queat. 

Rule  V.  To  determine  what  parts  of  the  Mosaic  law  are  to  be  understood 
literally,  and  what  parts  have  no  literal  meaning,  the  following  rule  must 
be  our  guide  ;  Whatever  in  the  writings  of  Moses  is  called  a  law,  admits  of  no 
literal  interpretation;  but  whatever  is  denominated  a  commandment,  a  precept,  a 
statute,  a  testimony,  or  a  judgment,  has  a  literal  meaning  which  should  not  be 
disregarded.     Many  passages  bearing  these  latter  titles,  in  addition  to  their  lite- 


186  Century  Ill.—Sectlon  28. 

ral  meaning,  liave  also  a  moral  sense,  or  are  moral  allegories. — This  rule,  so 
sublle,  so  obscure,  and  so  difficult  of  application,  Origen  explains  and  inculcates 
at  much  length  in  his  eleventh  HumUy  on  Numb.  \  1.  (0pp.  torn.  ii.  p.  304.)  To 
show  how  a  law  differs  from  commandments,  precepts,  testimonies,  and  judg- 
ments, he  aays :  "  A  law  has  a  shadow  of  things  to  come :  but  not  so  a  com- 
mandment, or  a  statute,  or  a  judgment;  of  which  it  is  never  written  that  they 
must  be  regarded  as  shadows  of  things  to  come;  e.  g.,  it  is  not  written:  This 
[p.  654.]  is  the  commandment  of  the  passover,  but  this  is  the  law  of  the  passover. 
And,  because  a  law  is  a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come,  the  law  of  the  pass- 
over  is  doubtless  a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come :  and,  of  course,  its  words 
have  no  direct  meaning."  -  -  "Of  circumcision  it  is  written:  This  is  the  law 
of  circumcision. Hence  I  inquire,  Of  what  good  things  to  come  is  circum- 
cision the  shadow."  -  -  -  "  But  wiien  it  is  said  :  Thou  shall  not  kill ;  thou  shall 
not  commit  adultery ;  thou  shall  not  steal,  and  the  like  ;  you  do  not  find  the  title 
of  laws  prefixed,  for  these  are  rather  commandments:  and  thus  that  scripture 
is  not  made  void  among  the  disciples  of  the  Gospel  -  -  because  not  a  com- 
mandment, but  the  laic,  is  .said  to  have  a  shadoio  of  things  to  come.  And  a  little 
after,  (in  §  2.  p.  305.)  he  says:  "Christ  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law. 
(Gal.  iii.  IS.)  ;  he  did  not  redeem  us  from  the  curse  of  the  command?nent,  nor 
from  the  curse  of  the  testimony,  nor  from  the  curse  o{  judgments,  but  lium  the 
curse  of  the  law;  that  is,  that  we  might  not  be  subject  to  circumcision  in  the 
flesh,  nor  to  the  observance  of  sabbaths,  and  other  like  things,  which  are  not 
contained  in  commandments,  but  are  to  be  considered  as  in  the  law.''^  By  the 
law,  in  its  stricter  sense,  Origen  would  have  us  understand  the  ceremonial 
law.  Hence  the  import  of  his  rule  is,  that  the  cerejnonial  law  should  be  inter- 
preted mystically,  and  not  literally  ;  but  the  moral  law  is  to  be  first  taken  lite- 
rally, before  we  proceed  to  any  higher  sense  of  it.  Under  the  moral  law,  he 
also  includes  the  civil  or  judicial  code  of  the  Jews;  as  many  examples  in  his 
Homilies  demonstrate.  And  yet  Origen  does  not  uniformly  follow  this  rule. 
For  he  sometimes  turns  into  allegories  certain  portions  of  the  civil  law ;  pre- 
cepts which  the  heretics,  and  perhaps  Origen  himself,  deemed  too  harsh,  or 
which  he  could  not  explain  satisfactorily.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  some  of  the 
ceremonial  laws  he  forbids  being  construed  only  mystically.  For  instance,  he 
enjoins  on  Christians  the  law  of  first  fruits  and  of  tithes.  Thus,  in  his  eleventh 
Homily  on  Numb.  (^  1.  p.  303.) :  Hanc  legem  observari  etiam  secundum  litte- 
ram,  sicut  et  alia  nonnulla  (among  the  Jewish  rites  and  institutions,)  necessa- 
rium  puto.  Sunt  enim  aliquanta  legis  mandata  (note — in  the  style  of  Origen, 
the  law  means  the  ceremonial  law.)  qu£e  etiam  novi  testamenti  discipuli  neces- 
saria  observatione  custodiunt. 

Rule  VI.  Although  the  ceremonial  part  of  the  ]\fosaic  law  has  now  only  a 
mystical  interpretation,  or  is  not  to  be  construed  literally,  yet  we  are  not  to  un- 
derstand that  it  always  has  been  so.  There  are  indeed  some  things  in  this  part 
of  the  law  which  never  had  any  literal  meaning ;  but  there  are  many  other 
things,  which,  so  long  as  the  Jewish  commonwealth  existed,  had  a  literal  mean- 
ing for  that  people,  and  were  to  be  observed  by  them  accordingly.  Since 
Christ's  advent,  however,  the  whole  have  lost  their  literal  sense,  and  are  either 


Origeiis  AUegorles.  187 

to  be  construed  as  mornl  alleg-ories,  or  to  be  referred  to  the  two  mystical  worlds. 
All  the  learned  men  who  have  hitherto  attempted  to  explain  Origcn's  [p.  655.] 
system  of  interpretation,  have  judged  that  he  considered  the  whole  cero- 
mouial  law  as  purely  mystical,  and  having  no  literal  meaning.  Thus  Charlea 
de  la  Rue,  in  his  preface  to  Origcn's  works,  (torn.  ii.  p.  14.)  says,  that  "  Each 
and  every  passage  of  scripture,  which  in  any  manner  belonged  to  the  ceremo- 
nial law,  with  no  exception,  had  not  a  literal,  but  only  a  mystical  sense."  The 
falsehood  of  this  assertion  we  have  already  shown:  Origen  did  make  exceptions. 
But  I  do  not  wonder  that  learned  men  should  fall  into  this  mistake.  For,  not 
being  careful  to  make  distinctions,  and  sometimes  confounding  things  altoge- 
ther ditlerent,  Origen  frequently  talks  as  if  he  held  such  an  opinion.  But  if  we 
compare  all  his  expositions,  and  carefully  mark  his  expressions,  it  will  be  mani- 
fest, I  think,  that  he  could  not  have  been  so  demented  and  destitute  of  common 
sense,  as  to  suppose  that  all  the  ordinances  of  Moses  respecting  the  tabernacle, 
sacrifices,  the  high  priest,  and  other  priests  and  Levites,  and  numerous  other 
things,  ought  to  have  been  mystically  understood  by  the  Jews;  and  that  of 
course  the  ichole  Levilical  worship  was  founded  on  a  false  exposition  of  the  Mo- 
saic law.  It  is  indeed  true,  that  he  believed  some  of  the  ceremonial  laws  to  be 
without  meaning ;  and  he  accused  the  Jews  of  manifesting  gross  ignorance  by 
scrupulously  obeying  them.  Some  examples  have  already  been  adduced,  and 
more  might  easily  be  added.  In  his  third  Homily  on  Levit.  {\  3.  0pp.  torn.  ii. 
p.  194.)  he  says,  that  the  Jews  very  unsuitably  and  uselessly  observed  (inde- 
center  satis  et  inutiliter  observare)  that  law,  which  forbids  touching  a  dead 
body  or  any  unclean  tiling ;  and  he  maintains,  that  this  law  should  be  under- 
stood mystically.  The  same  thing  he  repents  at  large  in  his  seventh  Homihj. 
And  again  in  the  third  Homily  on  Levit.  explaining  that  law  (Levit.  v.  15,  16.) 
which  requires,  in  case  of  involuntary  trespass,  the  offering  of  a  ram,  estimated 
by  the  shekel  of  the  sanctuary,  he  says:  Quod  aperte  secundum  litteram  qui- 
dem  videtur  absurdum,  secundum  spiritalem  vero  intelligentiam  certum  est, 
quod  remissionera  peccatorum  nullus  accipiat,  nisi  detulerit  integram,  probam 
et  snnctara  fidem,  per  quam  mereari  possit  arietem  (Jesum  Christum.)  In  his 
fifth  Homily,  Q  5.  p.  209.)  after  citing  the  law  in  Levit.  vii.  9 :  "  And  all  the 
meat-offering  that  is  baked  in  the  oven,  and  all  that  is  dressed  in  the  frying- 
pan,  and  in  the  pan,  shall  be  the  priest's  that  offereth  it," — he  expressly  denies 
the  literal  interpretation  of  it,  thus:  Quid  dicimus  ?  Putamusque  quod  omni- 
potens  Deus  qui  responsa  Moysi  ca3litus  dabat,  de  clibano,  et  craticula  et  sarta- 
gine  praeciperit?  -  -  Sed  non  ita  ecclesiae  pueri  Christum  didicerunt,  nee  ita  in 
eum  per  Apostolos  eruditi  sunt,  ut  de  Domino  majestatis  aliquid  tam  humile  et 
tam  vile  suscipiant.  Quin  potius  secundum  spiritalem  sensura,  quem  spiritus 
donat  ecclesiae,  videamus,  quod  sit  istud  sacrificium,  quod  coquatur  in  clibano. 
More  proof  is  not  needed.  Yet  Origen  did  not  venture  to  deny  that  the  great- 
est part  of  the  ritual  law  had  a  literal  meaning,  and  that  God  by  i\Ioses  [p.  656.] 
commanded  that  very  worship  which  the  Hebrews  paid  before  Christ's  advent: 
nay,  he  extols  and  lauds  this  same  worship.  To  pass  over  many  other  exam- 
ples, he  thus  commences  his  twenty-third  Homily  on  Numb.  (0pp.  torn.  ii.  p. 
356.):  Si  observatio  sacrificiorum  et  instituta  Jegalia  quae  in  typo  data  sunt 


188  Ce)iturij  IIL—Sectioii  28. 

populo  Israel,  usque  mcI  praesens  tempus  stare  potuissent,  exclusissent  sine  dubio 
Eviingelii  J'ulem.  -  -  -  Erat  enim  in  illis,  quce  tunc  observabantur,  magnifica 
qua3dem  et  totius  reverentise  plena  religio,  quce  ex  ipso  ctiam  primo  aspeetu 
obstupefaceret  intuentes.  Quis  enim  videns  illud,  quod  appellabatur  sanctua- 
rium,  et  intuens  altare,  adstantes  etiam  sacerdotes  sacrifieia  consuminantes,  om- 
nemque  ordinem,  quo  euncta  ilia  gerebantur,  aspiciens,  non  putaret,  plenissi- 
mum  liunc  esse  ritum,  quo  Deus  creator  omnium  ab  humano  genere  coli  debe- 
ref?  See  also  the  many  expositions  of  the  Mosaic  laws  in  his  Homilies  on 
Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers,  in  which  he  first  inquires  after  the  literal 
meaning  and  pronounces  it  useful,  and  then  proceeds  to  the  mysteries  it 
contains.  He  however  did  maintain,  that  the  Mosaic  ritual  law,  which  anciently 
had  a  literal  or  grammatical  sense,  entirely  lost  that  sense  after  Christ's  advent, 
and  by  Christians  was  to  be  understood  only  mystically.  In  his  sixth  Homily 
on  Gen.  \  3.  (0pp.  tom.  ii.  p.  77.)  he  says :  Quod  si  edoceri  vis,  quomodo  lex 
mortua  sit,  considera  et  vide,  ubi  nunc  sacrifieia,  ubi  nunc  altare,  ubi  tempi um, 
ubi  purificationes ?  nonne  mortua  est  in  his  omnibus  lex?  Aut  si  possunt  isti 
amici  ac  defensores  littera3,  custodiant  litteram  legis.  Origen  pronounces  the 
law  dead^  when  it  cannot  and  should  not  be  observed ;  but  it  is  aliie  when  it 
can  and  should  be  obeyed  according  to  its  literal  import.  In  his  eleventh 
Homily  on  Exod.  (;)  6.  p.  171.)  he  says:  Infirmatur  lex  in  carne,  id  est,  in  littera, 
^  nihil  potest  secundum  litteram  facere.  -  -  Secundum  autem  consilium,  quod 
nos  afferimus  ad  legem,  possunt  omnia  spiritaliter  fieri.     Possunt  et  sacrifieia 

spiritaliter  offerri,  quae  modo  carnaliter  non  possunt. Quomodo  nos  sentimus 

et  consilium  damns,  omnia  faeit  lex:  secundum  literam  autem  non  omnia,  sed 
admodum  pauca.  Therefore  there  were  some,  at  least,  of  the  ritual  laws,  which 
he  supposed,  as  before  shown,  can  and  should  be  observed  at  the  present  day. 
But  by  what  marks  we  are  to  know  what  parts  of  the  law  never  had  any  literal 
meaning,  and  what  parts  admitted  of  a  threefold  exposition  before  the  advent 
of  Christ,  and  now  admit  of  only  a  twofold  exposition, — a  moral  and  a  mystical, 
— T  do  not  recollect  that  he  has  any  where  informed  us.  I  make  no  question, 
however,  that  he  applied  here  that  general  rule  already  stated, — that  whatever 
injunctions  were  unworthy  of  God,  or  absurd,  or  impossible  to  be  executed, 
were  to  be  regarded  as  having  no  literal  meaning. 

Rule  Vn.  In  the  Biblical  narrations  and  in  the  prophecies  concerning  na- 
tions,  countries,  and  cities,  in  addition  to  the  moral  or  spiritual  sense,  there  is 
[p.  657.]  also  an  anagogical  sense,  or  one  that  relates  to  the  celestial  or  upper 
world:  but  this  sense  must  be  explored  cautiously  and  with  diffidence,  for  it  is 
extremely  recondite.  As  we  have  shown,  Origen  believed  that  this  lower  world 
of  ours  resembles  the  world  above,  and  therefore,  whatever  is  narrated  or  pre- 
dicted in  the  scriptures  respecting  the  Jews,  the  Tyrians,  the  Sidonians,  the 
Egyptians,  and  other  nations, — all  holds  true  also  of  the  world  of  souls,  in 
W'hich  the  angels  preside.  In  defending  this  fiction,  he  is  extravagant  enough 
to  hazard  the  assertion,  that  even  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  in  some 
sense  took  place  also  in  the  supersensible  world.  Thus,  in  his  first  Homily  on 
Levit.  (§  3.  p.  186,  &c.) :  Recte  ergo  (Moses)  secundo  nominat  altare,  quod  est 
ad  ostium  tabernaculi  testimonii,  quia  non  solum  pro  terrestribus  sed  etiam  pro 


Or Ig ell's  Ilcxapla.  189 

cceiestibus  oblatus  est  hostia  Jesus:  Et  hie  quidem  pro  hominibus  ip^am  corpo- 
rakm  materiam  sanguinis  sui  fudit,  in  ca3lestibu3  vcro  miiiistrantibus  (si  qui  illi 
inibi  sunt)  saoerdotibus,  vilalem  corporis  sui  viriuiem,  velut  spiritalc  quoddani 
pacrificium  iinmolavit.  And  this  he  very  strangely  endeavors  to  prove  by  IK-br. 
ix.  20.  and  Hebr.  vii.  25.  Concerning  this  opinion  of  Origcn,  lluel  h;is  a  discus- 
sion in  his  Origeniana,  (Lib.  ii.  Qua^st.  iii.  p.  59,  &c.) ;  and  he  taxes  all  his  in- 
genuity to  screen  the  man,  at  least  partially,  if  not  wholly,  from  this  charge. 
But  this  distinguished  scholar  effects  nothing;  and  he  did  not,  or  would  not,  see 
that  this  fiction  of  Origeu  followed,  necessarily,  from  his  doctrine  of  the  agree- 
ment and  similitude  existing  between  the  celestial  and  terrestrial  worlds. 

(2)  Tiie  learned  have  justly  admired,  and  have  extolled  in  the  highest  terms 
the  untiring  industry  and  perseverance  of  Origen,  in  compiling  liis  Tetrapla  and 
Hexapla,  in  which  he  brought  together  all  the  Greek  translations  of  the  Old 
Testament  then  extant,  and  compared  them  with  the  Hebrew  text.  What  is 
called  his  Tetrapla,  was  an  edition  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  which  he  combined 
with  the  Hebrew  text  the  four  celebrated  Greek  versions,  those  of  the  Seventy, 
of  Aquila,  of  Symmachus,  and  of  Theodotion ;  and  so  arranged  the  whole  that 
they  could  easily  be  compared  with  each  other,  and  with  the  Hebrew.  The 
pages  were  divided  into  five  columns ;  the  first  column  contained  the  Hebrew 
text,  first  in  Hebrew  and  then  in  Greek  letters.  The  four  other  columns  con- 
tained the  four  Greek  versions  above  named,  together  with  significant  marks 
and  critical  notes.  When  three  other  Greek  versions  of  the  Old  Testament 
were  afterwards  found  at  Jericho,  Origen  added  these  also  to  his  work ;  which 
then  acquired  the  name  of  Hexapla,  because  it  contained  six  Greek  versions  of 
the  Old  Testament.  They  might  have  been  called  seven  ;  but  they  were  reckoned 
as  only  six,  because  the  sixth  and  seventh,  which  perhaps  differed  but  a  little, 
were  accounted  but  one,  and  occupied  only  one  column,  namely,  the  [p.  658.] 
seventh.  Of  this  immortal  work,  Bernard  de  Monffaucon  has  treated  largely,  in 
the  Prolegomena  to  his  edition  of  the  remains  of  the  Hexapla,  printed  at  Paris, 
1713,  2  vols,  folio.  This  immense  labor  Origen  undertook,  especially  for  the 
benefit  of  those  who  were  either  wholly  ignorant  of  Hebrew,  or  had  but  a 
slight  acquaintance  with  it,  that  they  might  obtain  a  better  knowledge  of  Ihe 
literal  meaning  of  the  Bible,  by  comparing  so  many  different  Greek  versions. 
And  yet  tliis  same  Origen  maintained  that  the  words  of  scripture,  in  very  many 
places,  have  no  meaning  at  all;  and  he  advised  his  pupils  to  disregard  the 
literal  sense  of  scripture,  or  what  he  calls  the  body  of  it,  and  to  search  only  for 
its  marrow  and  its  soul,  that  is,  for  its  mystical  and  moral  interpretation.  And 
his  own  practice  as  a  commentator  coincided  with  his  precepts.  And  thus,  fre- 
quently, very  great  men  are  inconsistent  with  themselves,  or  sometimes  follow 
one  principle,  and  sometimes  another.  It  was  certainly  of  no  importance  to 
have  the  means  of  arriving  at  the  literal  meaning,  if  that  meaning  is  of  no 
worth;  and  as  for  the  mystical  senses,  they  can  be  successfully  explored,  with- 
out the  trouble  of  examining  the  numberless  phrases  and  uses  of  words  in  the 
sacred  volume.  Origen,  therefore,  by  that  immense  labor,  produced  a  work  of 
little  utility,  either  to  himself  or  to  those  who  follow  his  mode  of  interpreting 
the  scriptures ;  and  he  does  not  himself  resort  to  liis  Hexapla  for  aid,  in  hia 
Commentaries  and  Homilies,  because  it  was  little  suited  to  his  purpose. 


100  Century  Ill.—Section  29. 

§  XXIX.  Oriircn  and  Mystic  Theology.  This  Origen,  wllO  was  the 
chief  corrupter  of  Christianity  by  philosopliical  speculations,  ana 
who  introduced  the  fictions  of  his  own  mind  into  the  holy  scrip- 
tures, did  likewise,  by  his  precepts  respecting  the  origin  of  the 
soul,  and  its  self-determination  in  action,  give  encouragement 
and  support  to  that  unsocial  class  of  men  who  strive  to  with- 
draw their  minds  from  all  sensible  and  material  objects,  and  to 
associate  themselves  with  the  divine  nature  by  contemplation- 
At  least,  this  is  a  fact,  that  after  his  writings  began  to  circulate 
among  Christians,  and  his  opinions  to  be  lauded,  embraced,  and 
propagated,  far  gi^eater  numbers  than  before  ga  f  e  up  all  worldly 
business  and  cares,  to  increase  their  piety ;  and,  in  order  to  be- 
hold God  mentally,  resolved  to  retire  into  solitary  places,  expect- 
ing, by  concentrated  meditation  and  by  the  mortification  of  their 
bodies,  to  obtain  spiritual  freedom  and  complete  tranquillity  of 
mind.(')  And,  perhaps,  the  famous  Paul  of  Thebais,  who,  to 
save  his  life  during  the  Decian  23ersecution,  is  reported  to  have 
fled  into  the  deserts,  and  there  to  have  lived  to  extreme  old  age, 
[p.  659.]  and  who  was  accounted  the  leader  and  father  of  the 
Eremites^ — chose,  on  the  termination  of  the  persecution,  not  to 
return  to  social  life,  but  to  spend  all  his  days  among  wild  beasts, 
for  this  reason,  that  he  might  purge  out  of  his  mind  all  images 
of  sensible  things,  and  bind  it  to  God  by  indissoluble  ties.(^) 

(1)  Origen  embraced  and  held  all  those  principles  which  lie  at  the  foundation 
of  what  is  properly  denominated  Mystic  Theology.  In  the  first  place,  he  be- 
lieved that  man  has  two  souls;  the  one  a  rational  soul,  which  is  of  divine  origin; 
the  other  not  rational,  but  capable  of  apprehending  and  of  craving  external  ob- 
jects, and  of  exciting  various  emotions  in  the  man.  He  believed  that  the  higher 
or  rational  soul  originated  out  of  the  divine  nature,  and  would  return  into  it 
again ;  that  it  existed  from  eterniiy  in  the  upper  world,  and  was  of  a  spotless 
character;  that,  for  some  fault  committed,  it  was  condemned  to  reside  in  its 
present  concrete  body;  that  it  retains  its  innate  perceptions  of  truth,  goodness, 
and  justice ;  that  while  inhabiting  the  body,  it  has  a  natural  power  of  exciting 
the  latent  principles  of  truth  and  goodness  inherent  in  it;  that  all  its  propense- 
ness  to  evil  and  sin,  arises  from  its  connection  with  the  sentient  soul,  and  from 
the  contagion  of  the  body ;  and  that  there  is  no  way  for  it  to  become  perfect 
and  happy,  but  by  freeing  itself  from  the  ties  which  connect  it  with  the  animal 
soul,  subduing  the  power  of  the  senses,  withdrawing  itself  from  the  objects 
which  allure  the  senses,  arousing  its  inherent  perceptions  (of  virtue)  by  con- 
tinued meditation,  and  by  weakening  and  exhausting  the  activities  of  the  body  in 
which  it  is  imprisoned.    Now,  the  man  who  adopts  all  these  notions,  is  a  travel- 


Origcn  and  Mi/stk   Theology.  191 

ler  in  tlic  direct  road  to  th:it  system  of  doctrine  which  bears  the  name  of  Mys- 
tic Theology. — Hut,  in  addition  to  these  notions,  Origen  held  some  opinions 
which  give  energy  and  force  to  those  common  notions  of  mystics,  and  prompt 
them  more  strongly  and  earnestly  to  desire  solitude,  and  to  indulge  the  hope  of 
a  mystical  deification.  The  first  of  these  opinions  was  his  celebrated  doeirine 
concerning  the  soul  of  Jesus  Christ,  which,  he  snjjposed,  as  we  have  before 
stated, — by  intense  and  uninterrupted  contemi)lation  of  the  Word  or  Son  of 
God,  before  his  descent  to  our  world,  had  become  so  absorbed  in  the  divine 
Word,  as  to  form  but  one  person  with  him.  For  the  soul  of  Christ  is  of  the 
same  nature  with  all  other  human  souls.  In  his  Principia,  (L.  ii.  §  5.  p.  91.)  he 
says:  Naturam  quidem  anima3  Christi  banc  fuisse,  quae  est  omnium  animarum, 
non  potest  dubitari:  alioquin  nee  dici  anima  potuit,  si  vere  non  fuit  anima. 
Therefore,  all  the  souls  of  men,  though  at  present  vastly  inferior  to  that  chief 
of  all  souls,  and  though  living  in  exile  and  in  prison  houses, — have  the  power* 
by  contemplating  the  Word  of  God,  to  withdraw  themselves  from  the  body  and 
from  the  associated  sentient  soul,  and  to  bring  themselves  into  closer  [p.  660.] 
communion  with  the  Son  of  God.  He  says  :  Anima,  quae  quasi  ferrum  in  igne, 
sic  semper  in  Verbo,  semper  in  sapientia,  semper  in  Deo  posita  est,  omne  quod 
agit,  quod  sentit,  quod  intelligit,  Deus  est.  This  indeed  he  says  especially  of 
Christ's  soul;  but  he  immediately  adds,  that  he  would  not  exclude  entirely  the 
souls  of  holy  men  from  the  same  felicity.  Ad  omnes  denique  sanctos  calor 
aliquis  Verbi  Dei  putandus  est  pervenisse :  in  hac  autem  anima  (Christi)  ipse 
ignis  divinus  substantialiter  requievisse  credendus  est,  ex  quo  ad  ceteros  calor 
aliquis  pervenerit.  This  then  was  Origen's  belief:  That  every  rational  soul 
that  follows  the  example  of  Christ's  soul,  and  assiduously  contemplates  the 
Word  of  God,  or  Christ,  becomes  a  participant  of  that  Word,  and,  in  a  sense, 
receives  the  Word  into  itself.  In  another  passage,  (de  Principiis,  Lib.  iii.  c.  iii. 
^  3.)  he  expresses  the  same  sentiment  thus:  Sanctai  et  immaculatie  animac  si  cum 
omni  afFectu,  omnique  puritate  se  voverint  Deo  et  alienas  se  ab  omni  daemonum 
contagione  servaverint,  et  per  multara  abstinentiam  purificaverint  se  et  piis  ac 
religiosis  irabuta?  fuerint  disciplinis,  participium  per  hoc  duinitatis  assumunt  et 
prophetiae  ac  ceterorum  divinorum  donorum  gratiam  merentur. — Whither  these 
opinions  lead,  and  how  much  they  must  strengthen  the  propensity  and  facilitate 
the  progress  of  those  naturally  inclined  to  austerities,  to  holy  idleness  and  to 
irrational  devotion,  all  who  are  acquainted  with  human  nature  can  easily 
perceive. 

But  I  think  it  will  not  be  unpleasant  to  many,  to  see  this  portion  of  Origen's 
system  more  fully  developed,  and  to  learn  more  clearly  how  the  several  parts 
stand  connected,  and  by  what  arguments  they  are  supported.  I  will  therefore 
show,  as  briefly  as  I  can,  how  Origen  brings  down  souls,  the  daughters  of  the 
supreme  Deity,  from  their  state  of  blessedness  in  heaven,  into  this  lower  world  ; 
and  what  method  he  points  out  for  their  recovering  their  lost  felicity.  A  know- 
ledge of  these  things  will  be  the  more  useful,  the  more  numerous  at  the  present 
day  those  are,  who  either  altogether  or  in  part  agree  with  Origen,  and  the  fewer 
tliose  are,  who  treat  of  Origen  with  a  full  understanding  of  his  views. 

1.  No  one  is  prosperous  and  happy,  no  one  is  wretched  and  unhappy,  and 


192  Centunj  III— Section  29. 

no  one  is  either  more  li.ippy  or  more  miserable  than  other  people,  except  in  ac. 
pordai-kce  with  his  own  merits  or  demerits.  For  God,  who  rules  and  ^-overns  all 
tilings,  is  always  and  infinitely  just ;  and  therefore  cannot  allot  to  any  crea- 
ture, not  meriting  it,  either  reward  or  punishment.  This  is  the  great  and  fun- 
damental principle,  on  which  nearly  the  whole  fabric  of  Origen's  theology  rests, 
and  from  which  he  deduces  the  greater  part  of  his  opinions. 

II.  All  the  souls  or  persons, — for  Origen  considered  the  hody  as  no  part  of 
the  man,  so  that  with  him  soul  and  person  were  synonymous — all  the  souls  in- 
habiting this  world,  are  unhappy,  or  are  encompassed  with  many  evils  and  trou- 
bles, some  w-ith  greater  and  some  with  less.  Now  as  no  one  can  be  unhappy, 
[p.  661.]  or  be  less  happy  than  others,  except  by  his  own  fault,  we  are  com- 
pelled to  believe  that  all  the  souls  inhabiting  bodies,  have  merited  the  evils 
they  now  suffer. 

III.  Hence  we  can  not  doubt  that  oui;  rational  souls,  before  they  entered  our 
bodies,  used  the  powers  God  gave  them,  improperly,  and  for  these  their  faults 
they  were  condemned  to  live  in  bodies  ;  those  guilty  of  greater  offences  were 
encompassed  with  greater  evils,  and  those  guilty  of  smaller  offences  were  in- 
volved in  lighter  calamities.  Unless  this  be  admitted,  we  cannot  account  for 
the  great  ditlerence  in  the  conditions  of  men  in  this  world ;  nor  can  we  silence 
the  objections  of  adversaries  to  the  providence  of  God.  These  principles  Origen 
inculcates  in  many  parts  of  his  waitings :  we  will  cite  one  of  the  principal  pas- 
sages, namely,  de  Principiis  L.  ii.  c  9.  ]).  97.  where  he  says  :  Si  haec  tanta  rerura 
diversitaa,  nascendique  conditio  tam  varia  tamque  diversa,  in  qua  caussa  utique 
facultas  liberi  arbitrii  locum  non  habet  (non  enim  quis  ipse  sibi  eligit,  vel  ubi,vel 
apud  quos,  vel  qua  conditlone  nascatur.)  Si  ergo  hoc  non  facit  naturte  diversitas 
animarum,  id  est,  ut  mala  natura  animee  ad  gentem  malam  distinetur,  bona  autem 
ad  bonas,  quid  aliud  superest,  nisi  ut  fortuito  ista  agi  putentur  et  casu  ?  Quod 
utique  si  recipiatur,  jam  nee  a  Deo  factus  est  mundus,  nee  a  providentia  ejus 
regi  credetur,  et  consequenter  nee  Dei  judicium  de  uniuscujusque  gestis  videbi- 
tur  expectandum.  To  these  objections  of  the  heretics,  he  replies  in  the  follow- 
ing words :  Deus  sequales  creavit  omnes  ac  similes  quos  creavit,  quippe  cum 
nulla  ei  caussa  varietatis  ac  diversitatis  existeret.  Verum  quoniam  rationabiles 
ipsae  creaturae — arbitrii  facultate  donatte  sunt,  libertas  unumquemque  voluntatis 
suae,  vel  ad  profectum  per  imitationem  Dei  provocavit,  vel  ad  defectum  per  neg- 
ligentiam  traxit.  Et  ha3c  exstitit  caussa  diversitatis  inter  rationabiles  crcatnras, 
non  ex  conditioris  voluntate  vel  judicio  originem  trahens,  sed  propria  libcrtatis 
arbitrio.  Deus  vero  cui  jam  creaturam  suam  pro  merito  dispensarc  justum  vide- 
batur,  diversitates  mentium  in  unius  mundi  consonantiam  traxit,  quo  velut  unam 
doraum  -  -  ex  istis  diversis  vasis,  vel  animis,  vel  mentibus,  ornaret.  Et  has  caussas 
mundus  iste  suae  diversitatis  accepit,  dum  unumquemque  divina  providentia  pro 
varietate  raotuum  suorum  vel  animorum  propositique  dispensat.  Qua  ratione 
neque  creator  injustus  videbitur,  cum  secundum  prrecedentes  caussas  pro  merito 
unumquemque  distribuit.  And  he  attempts  to  prove  these  his  assertions  by 
Bcripture,  especially  by  what  is  said  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  Rom.  ix.  11,  12.  He 
closes  his  argument  with  these  words ;  Justitia  Dei  demum  lucidius  ostendetur, 


Ongcii*s  Tlieolo(jy.  193 

SI  caussas  diversita,ti3  uniuscnjusque  vol  coelestium,  vel  terrestrium  vel  infonio- 
nitn  insemetipsoyjrcTceJ^n^es  nathitatem  corpoream  Iiabere  credatar. 

IV.  God  created  nil  souls  perfectly  alike,  and  endued  them  all  witli  the  full- 
est power  of  employing  their  faculties  well  or  ill,  according  to  their  pleasure  ; 
80  that  they  might  be  able  to  look  continunlly  on  the  eternal  Reason  [p.  662.] 
of  God  or  his  Word  and  Son ;  and  mi<rht,  by  this  contemplation,  increase  in 
wisdom  and  virtue,  and  finally  become  united  to  God  through  the  medium  of 
his  Son.  This  sentiment  of  Origeii  is  most  manifest  from  the  passage  just 
eited,  and  from  many  others. 

V.  These  free  souls,  before  they  were  enclosed  in  bodies,  and  before  this 
world  was  created,  w'ere  by  God  placed  under  the  following  law  ;  Every  soul 
that  would  be  prosperous  and  happy,  must  look  constantly  upon  the  Son  of 
God,  his  Wisdom,  his  Reason,  just  as  he  w^ould  upon  a  mirror  or  a  pattern,  and 
must  imitate  him.  By  so  doing,  that  soul  will  increase  in  wisdom  and  virtue 
and  in  all  blessedness,  and  will  gradually  become  incapable  of  sinning,  and  will 
be  united  closely  with  the  Son  of  God  whose  image  it  bears.  But  every  soul 
that  averts  its  attention  from  this  only  exemplar  of  wisdom  and  sanctity,  and 
pleases  itself  with  the  contemplation  of  material  things,  by  the  righteous  judg- 
ment of  God,  will  forfeit  its  natural  blessedness,  and  be  punished  for  its  of- 
fences in  a  material  body. 

VI.  Of  all  souls  no  one  obeyed  this  divine  law  more  sacredly  and  earnestly, 
than  that  soul  which  became  associated  with  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God.  For, 
by  a  perpetual  and  most  intense  contemplation  of  the  Word  or  Son  of  God, 
this  soul  attained  to  the  highest  point  of  sanctity,  and  merited  to  be  made  one 
person  with  the  Word. 

VII.  But  a  vast  multitude  of  souls  disobeyed  this  divine  law,  and,  disregard- 
ing the  Son  of  God,  the  eternal  divine  Reason,  slid  into  the  contemplation  of 
other  inferior  and  more  ignoble  objects.  The  cause  of  this  transgression  may 
be  traced  partly  to  the  very  nature  of  the  soul,  which  is  finite  and  therefore  mu- 
table, and  partly  to  that  subtile  body,  with  which  all  souls  are  clothed.  For 
this  tenuous,  shadowy  body,  though  it  be  etherial  and  very  different  from  our 
gross  bodies,  nevertheless  has  some  power,  if  the  soul  is  off  its  guard,  of  with- 
drawing the  mind  from  the  contemplation  of  heavenly  and  divine  things,  and  of 
inducing  it  to  misdirect  its  movements.  De  Principiis,  L.  ii.  (c.  9.  sec.  2. 
p.  97.) :  Rationabiles  istje  naturae,  quia  esse  coeperunt,  necessario  convertibiles 
et  mutabiles  substiterunt :  quoniam  qua^cunque  inerat  substantia)  earum  virtus, 
non  naturaliter  inerat,  sed  beneficio  conditoris  effecta.  -  -  Omne  (nempe)  quod 
datum  est,  etiam  auferri  et  recedere  potest.  Recedendi  autem  caussa  in  eo 
erit,  si  non  recte  et  probabiliter  dirigitur  raotus  animorum.  Voluntarios  enim 
et  liberos  motus  a  se  conditis  mentibus  creator  indulsit,  quo  scilicet  bonum  in 
eis  proprium  fieret,  cum  id  voluntate  propria  servaretur  :  sed  dcsidia  et  lalioris 
tredium  in  servando  bono,  et  aversio  ac  negligentia  meliorum  initium  dedit  rece- 
dendi a  bono.  It  is  well  known,  that  Origen  assigned  to  all  souls  tenuous 
bodies. 

VIII.  So  many  souls  having,  by  their  own  fault,  become  vicious,  it  was  ne- 
cessary for  God  to  perform  the  duty  of  a  judge,  and  execute  his  threat  to  con- 

VOL.   IL  14 


194  Century  III.— Section  29. 

neet  them  with  material  bodies  and  sentient  souls.  But  as  all  had  not  sinned 
[p.  663.]  in  an  equal  degree,  some  having  departed  farther  than  others  from 
goodness,  divine  justice  required,  that  the  punishment  of  each  should  be  propor- 
tionate to  his  offence. 

IX.  Hence,  God  determined  to  create  a  world  (or  material  universe,)  admi- 
rably composed  of  innumerable  bodies  of  divers  kinds;  so  that  each  of  the  souls 
which  had  variously  deviated  from  their  duty  in  the  upper  world,  might  here  i-e- 
verally  find  a  prison  corresponding  with  its  crimes.  From  many  passages,  1 
select  a  few  only.  In  his  Principia  (L.  ii.  c.  9.  sec.  2.  p.  97.)  he  says :  Unaqua;- 
que  mens  pro  motibus  suis  vel  amplius,  vel  parcius  bonum  negligens,  in  con- 
trarium  boni,  quod  sijie  dubio  malum  est,  traliebatur.  Ex  quo  videtur  semina 
qua?dam  et  caussas  varietatis  ac  diversitatis  ille  omnium  conditor  accepisse,  ut 
pro  diversiiate  mentium,  id  est,  rationabilium  creaturarum — varium  ac  diversum 
mundum  crearet.  Ibid.  (sec.  6.  p.  99.) :  Deus  cui  creaturam  suam  pro  merito 
dispensare  justum  videbatur,  diversitates  mentium  in  unius  mundi  consonan- 
tiam  traxit.  Ibid.  (sec.  7.  p.  100.)  :  Unusquisque  in  co  quod  mens  creatus  a 
Deo  est  vel  rationabilis  spiritus,  pro  motibus  mentis  et  sensibus  animorum,  vel 
plus  vel  minus  sibi  meriti  paravit,  vel  amabilis  Deo,  vel  etiara  odibilis  cxtitit. — 
Nam  justitia  creatoris  in  omnibus  debet  apparere. 

X.  The  cause,  therefore,  of  God's  creating  this  material  w^orkl  (or  universe; 
was,  the  sins  which  souls  committed  before  thi;5  world  existed.  Nor  should  we 
view  this  world  otherwise  than  as  a  vast  dwelling-place,  comprising  innumerable 
cottages  of  various  classes,  arranged  with  consummate  art,  in  which  souls,  fallen 
into  sin  by  their  own  fault,  might  be  detained  for  a  season,  until  they  repent 
and  return  to  their  duty.  In  his  Principia,  L.  ii.  (c.  9.  sec.  9.  p.  100.)  he  says: 
Unumquodque  vas  secundum  mensuram  puritatis  suce  aut  impuritatis,  locum, 
vel  regionem,  vel  conditionera  nascendi  vel  explendi  aliquid  in  hoc  mundo  ac- 
cepit :  quae  omnia  Deus  usque  ad  minimum  virtute  sapientiiis  sUcC  providens  ac 
dignoscens,  moderamine  judicii  sui  aequissima  retributione  universa  disponit, 
quatenus  unicuique  pro  merito  vel  succurri  vel  consul!  deberet.  In  quo  profecto 
omnis  ratio  sequitatis  offenditur,  dum  inaequalitas  rerum  retributionis  merito- 
rura  servat  aequitatem. 

XI.  Of  the  punishments  endured  by  souls  in  their  state  of  exile  and  captivity, 
besides  the  loss  of  their  former  felicity,  the  principal  and  the  greatest  is,  that 
each  is  joined  with  an  animated  body;  that  is,  with  a  mass  of  gross  matter,  in 
Avhich  lives  a  sentient  soul,  that  now  craves  and  desires,  and  now  abhors  and 
hates.  For  it  results  from  this  conjunction,  that  the  rational  soul  feels  little  or 
no  desire  for  heavenly  and  divine  things,  but  on  the  contrary,  craves  and  lusts 
after  earthly  and  sensible  objects,  and  is  agitated  and  pained  with  desires  that 
are  sometimes  vain  and  sometimes  hurtful.  And  the  society  of  the  body  not 
only  increases  this  evil,  and  weakens  the  force  and  energy  of  the  mind,  but  also 
causes  the  rational  soul  to  participate  in  the  pains  and  anguish  of  the  body. 

[p.  664.]  XII.  As  all  divine  punishments  are  salutary  and  useful,  so  also 
that  which  divine  justice  has  inflicted  on  vitiated  souls,  although  it  is  a  great 
evil,  is  nevertheless  salutrry  in  its  tendency,  and  should  conduct  them  to  bless- 
edness.   For  the  tiresome  conflict  of  opposite  propensities,  the  onsets  of  the 


Or  it/en's   Theology.  1<)5 

passions,  the  pains,  the  sorrows,  jvnd  other  evils  arisiiifj  from  the  connexion  of 
the  mind  with  the  body  and  with  a  sentient  soul,  may  and  shou.d  excile  the  cap. 
tive  soul  to  long  for  the  recovery  of  its  lost  happiness,  and  lead  it  to  concen- 
trate all  its  energies  in  order  to  escape  from  its  misery.  For  God  acis  like  a 
physician,  wlio  employs  harsh  and  bitter  remedies,  not  only  to  cure  ihe  diseas- 
ed, but  also  to  induce  them  to  preserve  their  health  and  avoid  whatever  might 
impair  it.  De  Principiis,  L.  ii.  (c.  10.  sec.  6.  p.  102.):  Si  ad  corporis  sanita- 
teni  pro  Iiis  vitiis,  qua3  per  escam  potumque  collegimus,  necessariam  habemus 
interdum  austerioris  ac  mordacioris  medicamenti  curam :  notniumquam  vero  si 
id  vitii  qualitas  depoposcerit,  rigore  ferri  et  sectionis  asperitate  indigemus:  -  . 
Quanto  magis  inlelligendura  est,  et  hunc  medicum  nostrum  Deum  volentem 
diluero  viiia  animarum  nostrarum,  qntc  ex  peceatorum  et  scelerum  diversitate 
collegerant,  uti  hujuscemodi  pa-.nalibus  curis,  insuper  eliam  (apud  inferos)  ignis 
inferre  supplicium  his  qui  anima3  sanitatem  perdiilerunt.  -  -  Furor  vindictae  Dei 
ad  purgationem  proficit  animarum.  -  -  Origen  indeed  here  refers,  more  espe- 
cially, to  the  pains  and  punishments  which  souls  endure  in  hell;  yet  he  states 
the  nature  of  all  the  evils  which  God  inflicts  upon  rational  beings.  And  it  is 
very  clear,  that  Origen  believed  in  no  divine  punishments  but  such  as  are  use- 
ful and  .salutary  (to  the  transgressors). 

XIII.  For  the  souls  in  whom  the  sorrows  of  their  prison  awakens  a  desire 
for  their  lost  happiness,  there  is  one  and  the  same  law,  as  for  the  souls  desti- 
tute of  bodies  and  resident  with  God.  No  soul  can  become  happy,  except  by 
means  of  the  eternal  Reason  and  Wisdom  of  God,  or  his  Word  and  Son;  on 
whom  they  must  fix  their  thoughts,  and  by  persevering  meditation  and  contem- 
plation, must  appropriate  him,  as  it  were,  and  make  themselves  one  with  him. 

XIV.  Innumerable  souls,  both  among  the  Jews  and  among  other  nations, 
have  performed  this  duty,  and  that  before  the  advent  of  Christ.  For  exiled  cap- 
tive souls  have  not  changed  their  natures,  but  retain  still  their  inherent  free 
will:  and  therefore  they  are  able,  although  with  difficulty,  by  their  own  inhe- 
rent powers  to  elevate  themselves  again,  and,  by  the  use  of  correct  reason,  to 
gradually  ascend  to  the  eternal  Reason  or  Son  of  God.  And  the  more  reli- 
giously and  correctly  a  soul  uses  its  reason,  the  nearer  it  approaches  to  God 
and  to  his  Son.  De  Principiis,  L.  i.  (c.  3.  sec.  6.  p.  62.) :  Participatio  Dei  pa- 
tris  pervenit  in  omnes  tarn  justos,  quara  peccatores,  et  rationabiles  atque  irrii- 
tionabiles.  -  -  Ostendit  sane  et  Apostolus  Paulus,  quod  omnes  habeant  parti- 
cipium  Christi.  Rom.  x.  6,  7,  8.  Ex  quo  in  corde  omnium  significat  [p.  C65.J 
esse  Christum  secundum  id  quod  verbum  vel  ratio  est,  cujus  participatione  ra- 
tionabiles sunt.  See  here  the  Christ  in  us,  or  the  Word  wilkin,  of  which  the 
Mystics  talk  so  much. — And  hence,  there  is  good  ground  of  hope  for  the  salva- 
tion of  the  ancient  philosophers,  especially  Plato,  Socrates,  and  others,  who 
averted  their  minds  from  the  body  and  the  senses. — Yet  for  souls  oppressed 
with  bodies,  this  is  a  very  arduous  and  difficult  task  ;  and  but  few  successfully 
accomplish  it  without  divine  aid. 

XV.  Therefore  God,  who  is  desirous  of  the  salvation  of  souls,  sent  that 
Word  of  his,  by  communion  with  whom  alone  their  recovery  was  possible, 
clotiicd  in  a  human  body,  from  heaven  unto  men,  or  unto  the  exiled  souls  en- 


196  Century  Ill.—Section  29. 

closed  in  bodies;  that  he  might  distinctly  teach  them  divine  wisdom,  by  which 
the  way  of  salvation  is  manifest,  but  to  which  they  with  difficulty  attain 
when  left  to  themselves;  and  that,  while  admonishing  them  of  their  duty, 
he  miglit,  by  patiently  enduring  very  great  sufferings  and  even  death,  ob- 
tain from  God  a  termination  of  their  imprisonment  and  exile.  Wliat  were 
Origen's  views  of  tlie  effects  of  Christ's  death  and  sufferings  it  is  very  dif- 
ficult to  say :  yet,  unless  I  entirely  misapprehend  him,  he  did  not  believe 
with  us,  that  Christ,  by  his  death  and  sufferings,  merited  for  us  eternal  life. 
This  could  not  be  admitted  by  the  man  who  believed,  that  no  one  can  become 
happy  except  by  his  own  merits,  and  that  even  fallen  souls  must  attain  to  hap- 
piness by  the  proper  use  of  their  own  free  will.  This,  tlierefore,  was  the  great 
benefit,  w^hich  he  supposed  the  death  of  Christ  procured  for  souls,  his  showing 
them  that  God  can  revoke  his  sentence  against  them  and  release  them  from 
prison  and  exile.  The  divine  justice  must,  in  some  w^ay,  be  moved  to  remit  the 
punishment,  which  souls  have  merited  by  the  abuse  of  their  free  will ;  and  this 
requisite  was  supplied  by  the  voluntary  suffering  to  which  Christ  submitted. 
Christ,  therefore,  is  like  a  wealthy  and  munificent  citizen,  who,  by  paying  over 
an  immense  sum  to  the  government,  or  by  voluntarily  performing  some  very 
difhcult  service  for  the  public  good,  obtains  from  the  injured  sovereign  permis- 
sion for  banished  exiles  to  return  to  their  country.  But  the  malefiictors  who 
are  permitted  to  return,  are  not  thereby  restored  to  their  former  happy  state : 
this  they  must  procure,  either  by  their  own  virtue,  or  by  the  virtues  of  others. 

XVI.  There  is  now,  since  the  advent  of  Christ,  a  plain  and  easy  w^ay  for 
souls  to  recover  that  felicity  from  which  they  have  fallen  by  their  own  fault. 
To  walk  in  it,  they  must  first,  by  faitli,  embrace  the  eternal  Word  of  God,  who 
has  appeared  on  earth  clothed  in  a  human  body ;  and  they  must  constantly  look 
on  him  as  the  only  author  and  teacher  of  eternal  salvation. 

XVII.  And  then,  to  attain  a  closer  union  with  Christ,  and  a  more  perfect 
knowledge  of  the  divine  wisdom  residing  in  him,  they  must  make  it  their  first 
and  great  care,  to  free  themselves  from  the  contagion  of  the  sentient  soul. 
And  therefore  they  must  estrange  themselves  from  their  eyes  and  cars  and  other 
[p.  666.]  senses,  and  with  all  their  might  must  betake  themselves  to  the  con- 
templation of  heavenly  truth.  Mortification  must  also  be  applied  to  the  body, 
which  greatly  increases  and  strengthens  the  power  of  the  sentient  soul,  espe- 
cially, if  it  be  luxuriously  fed  and  greatly  indulged.  And  finally,  as  the  images 
of  the  things  and  persons  about  us  or  with  which  we  are  conversant  are  apt  to 
rush  into  the  mind  through  the  senses,  and  greatly  to  excite  and  distract  the 
mind,  thereby  inducing  forgetfulness  of  the  things  beyond  our  senses,  and  great 
debility  in  our  free  will, — a  man  will  best  provide  for  the  freedom  and  the  forti- 
tude of  a  mind  altogether  upright,  by  shunning  as  much  as  possible  inter- 
course with  men,  conversation,  business,  and  the  bustle  of  the  world,  and  re- 
tiring into  solitude. 

XVIII.  The  rational  soul  that  will  thus  exercise  itself,  continually,  and 
never  remove  its  eyes  from  Christ,  will,  by  a  slow  process,  become  what  it  was 
before  it  entered  the  body :  that  is,  from  being  a  soul  propense  towards  corpo- 
real things  and  seeking  its  pleasure  in  the  senses,  it  will  become  pure  and  be 


Orig ell's   Th color/]/.  197 

elevated  above  all  earthly  and  perishing-  ol;)jo<;ts.  De  Principiis,  L,  ii.  (o.  8. 
see.  3.  ]).  96.)  :  Mens  ("owc),  de  statu  suo  ac  diijiiilatc  declinans,  ctfecta  vel  nun- 
ciipata  est  anima  (i^X'^)^  ^^  rursuin  aiiima  instrueta  virtutibus  mens  fict.  Nav, 
as  before  stated,  such  a  soul,  by  a  perpetual  contemplation  of  Christ,  becomes 
transformed  into  Christ,  according^  to  its  measure  and  capacity.  See,  among  other 
passages,  the  /Am/ chapter  of  Book  ii,  of  his  Principia;  where,  in  treating  of  Paul's 
words,  1  Cor.  xv.  63.  (For  tliis  mortal  must  put  on  immortality,)  he  says :  In- 
corruptio  et  immortalitas  quid  aliud  erit,  nisi  sapientia,  et  verbum.  ct  justitia 
Dei,  quae  formant  aiiimam,  et  induunt,  et  exornant?  Et  ita  lit,  ut  dicatur,  quia 
corruptibile  incorruptionem  induct  et  mortale  immortalitatem.  De  Principiis 
L.  i.  (e.  3.  sec.  6.  p.  62.)  :  Omnes  qui  rationabiles  sunt,  verbi,  id  est,  Rationis 
partieipes  sunt,  et  per  hoc  velut  semina  insita  sibi  gerunt  sapientiae  et  Justitiae, 
quod  est  Christus.  Ibid.  c.  ii.  (sec.  7.  p.  52.)  :  Propinquitas  quaedam  est  menti 
ad  Deum  -  -  et  per  haec  potest  aliquid  de  divinitatis  sentire  natura,  maxime  si 
expurgatior  et  segregatior  sit  a  materia  corporali. 

XIX.  This  whole  work  of  purifying  the  soul  and  translating  it  into  Ciu-ist,  doea 
not  exceed  the  powers  of  man.  For  as  the  rational  soul  is  allied  to  God,  although 
it  may  lapse  and  go  astray,  it  cannot  lose  its  essential  character  or  nature.  If, 
therefore,  the  inherent  energies  of  free  will  are  called  forth,  the  soul  can,  by  its 
own  power,  wipe  away  its  poUution.s,  and  by  a  gradual  process  work  its  way  out 
of  its  darkness.  And  as  no  one  can  become  happy,  but  by  his  own  merit,  the 
soul  will  either  never  attain  to  happiness,  or  it  will  attain  to  it  by  its  own  powers. 

XX.  Yet  those  who  properly  use  that  power  of  free  will  which  they  pos- 
sess, are  assisted  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  this  enables  them  to  advance  foster 
and  reach  the  goal  the  sooner.  For,  as  none  can  become  sharers  in  the  divine 
rewards  and  blessings,  except  they  merit  them,  so  the  Holy  Spirit  aids  no  one, 
unless  he  merits  that  aid.  De  Principiis,  L.  i.  (c.  3.  p,  62.)  :  In  illis  [p.  667.J 
solis  arbitror  esse  opus  Spiritus  sancti,  qui  jam  se  ad  meliora  convertunt,  et  per 
vias  Christi  Jesu  incedunt,  id  est,  qui  sunt  in  bonis  actibus,  et  in  Deo  perma- 
nent. And  a  little  after,  (in  sec.  7.  p.  63.)  he  more  clearly  states  his  views 
thus:  Est  etalia  quoque  Spiritus  sancti  gratia,  quae  dignis  praestatur,  ministra- 
ti  quidem  per  Christum,  inoperata  autem  a  Pat  re  secundum  meritum  eoruw, 
qui  capacesejus  efliciuntur. 

XXI.  The  gifts  which  the  Holy  Spirit  imparts  to  the  enlightened  in  order 
to  facilitate  their  progress,  are  indeed  various ;  but  among  them,  two  are  pro- 
minent. FirsU  the  Holy  Spirit  lays  open  to  them  the  mystical  and  spiritual 
sense  of  the  holy  Scriptures.  De  Principiis,  L.  ii.  (c.  7.  sec.  2.  p.  93.)  Per 
gratiam  Spiritus  sancti  cum  reliquis  quamplurimis  etiara  illud  magnificentissi- 
mum  demonstratur,  quod  (ante  Christum)  vix  unus  ex  omni  populo  superare 
poterat  intellectum  corporeum  (legis  e4.  prophetarum)  et  majus  aliquid,  id  est, 
spiritale  quid  poterat  inteliigere  in  lege  vel  prophetis  :  nunc  autem  innumerae 
sunt  multitudines  credentinm,  qui  licet  non  omnes  possint  per  ordinem  atque 
ad  liquidum  spiritalis  intellegentiae  explanare  consequentiam,  tamen  omnes  pcr- 
Buasum  habeant,  quod  neque  circumcisio  corporaliter  intelligi  debeat,  neque 
otium  sabbati,  vel  sanguinis  effusio  pecoris,  neque  quod  de  his  IMoysi  resjionsa 
darentur  a  Deo:  qui  utique  sensus  dubiura  non  est  quod  Spiritus  sancti  virtute 


198  Century  Ill.—Scctlon  20. 

omnibus  sng-geratur. — Secondly,  to  those  striving  after  wisdom  and  virtue,  the 
Holy  S})irit  explains  the  forms  and  tlie  grounds  and  reasons  of  the  doctrines 
taught  in  the  Bible;  and  from  these  they  derive  great  eon)fort  and  delight. 
Ibid.  (see.  4.  p.  93.)  De  Spiritu  sancto  partieipare  meruerit,  eognitis  ineilubili- 
bus  sacramenlis  consolationem  sine  dubio  et  laetitiam  cordis  assumit.  Cum 
enim  rationes  omnium,  quaj  fiunt,  quare  vol  qualiter  fiant,  Spiritu  indicante  cog- 
noverit,  in  nullo  utique  conturbari  ejus  anima  poterit :  ncc  in  aliquo  terretur, 
cum  verbo  Dei  et  Sapientiac  ejus  inhaerens,  Dominum  Jesum  dieit  in  Spiritu 
sancto.     I  omit  what  follows,  for  tlic  sake  of  brevity. 

(2)  About  the  middle  of  this  century,  and  during  the  Decian  persecution, 
one  Paul  of  Thebes,  in  Egypt,  to  preserve  his  life,  fled  into  the  deserts,  and 
there  lived  till  he  died  at  an  extreme  age  in  the  fourth  century.  And  this  Paul 
has  generally  been  accounted  the  founder  of  the  solitary  or  Eremile  life  ;  on 
the  authority  of  Jerome,  who  composed  his  biography.  (See  the  Acta  Sane- 
tor.  Antwerp.  Tom.  1.  Januarii  ad  diem  x.  p.  602.)  But  this  opinion,  as  Jerome 
himself  tells  us  in  the  Prologue  to  his  Life  of  Paul,  rests  solely  on  the  testimo- 
ny of  two  disciple  of  St.  Anthony,  who  are  not  witnesses  above  all  exceptions; 
Amathas  vero  et  Macarius,  discipuii  Aiitonii  -  -  etiam  nunc  affirmant,  Paulum 
[p.  668.]  quemdam  Thebaeum  principem  hujus  rei  fuisse.  Thus  much  may  be 
conceded  to  these  men,  that  prior  to  St.  Anthony,  their  master,  this  Paul  resid- 
ed in  the  desert  parts  of  Egypt.  But  that  no  Christian  anterior  to  Paul,  either 
in  Egypt  or  in  any  other  country,  retired  from  the  society  of  men  in  order  to 
acquire  an  extraordinary  degree  of  holiness,  can  never  be  proved  by  the  testi- 
mony of  these  illiterate  men,  who,  like  all  the  so-called  Eremites,  were  ignorant 
of  the  history  of  the  world.  Nor  was  this  opinion  as  to  the  origin  of  the  eremite 
life,  universally  adopted  in  the  age  of  Jerome:  for  he  himself  states  various 
other  opinions  on  the  subject.  He  appears  indeed  to  have  believed  the  state- 
ment of  the  two  eremites.  And  yet  this  is  not  altogether  certain  ;  for  his 
words  are  not  the  same  in  the  dilTerent  copies  of  his  work.  John  Mariianay, 
in  his  edition  of  Jerome's  Works,  (torn.  iv.  P.  ii.  p.  89.)  thus  states  them  : 
Paulum  quemdam  principem  istius  rei  fui.-^se,  non  nominis  :  quam  opinionem 
nos  quoque  probamus.  But  Erasmas  and  the  Acta  Sanctorum  read  :  Quod 
non  tam  nomine,  quam  opinione,  nos  quoque  comprobamus;  the  meaning  of 
which,  it  is  difficult  to  moke  out.  Other  copies  read  differently.  If  Jerome  did 
believe,  what  he  says  the  two  disciples  of  Anthony  stated,  that  the  eremite  life 
originated  with  this  Paul,  he  certainly  erred.  For  it  appears,  both  from  ex- 
amples and  from  testimony,  that  before  this  man,  not  a  few  of  the  class  of 
Christians  called  Ascetics,  especially  in  Egypt,  a  country  abounding  in  persons 
naturally  gloomy  and  averse  from  society,  did  retire  from  the  cities  and  towns 
into  the  fields  and  the  uncultivated  regions,  in  order  to  deprive  the  sentient 
soul  of  its  delights,  to  mortify  the  body,  and  to  aid  the  divine  mind  toiling  in 
its  prison.  And  that  very  Anthony,  whom  some  make  the  father  of  eremites, 
followed  the  example  of  an  old  man  who  had  pursued  this  mode  of  life  from 
his  youth  ;  as  Athanasius  expressly  testifies  in  his  Life  of  St.  Anthony,  (0pp. 
tom.  ii.  p.  4.53.)  And  before  this  old  man,  very  many  adopted  the  same  mode 
of  life,  although  they  did   not  retire  to  perfectly  secluded  places  and  to  the 


Rise  of  Eremites.  199 

haunts  of  wild  hcarits,  but  only  erected  for  Ihemselvcs  a  retired  domieil  not  Jar 
trotii  tlieir  vill.-iii^cs.  So  Alhanasiiis,  in  the  passage  just  mentioned,  says  :  "^.x.Ji<ms 
ifi  rii'v  f^cvKOfAeveuV  i-iVTCc  irpocrs^iiv,  ov  fAiiKfsav  T«i  iJ'ias  }tu\u)is  KXTauovai;  iia-mirc, 
Unnstjuisijue  eoruin,  qui  aniniuin  curare  volebat,  solus  non  proeul  a  paL''o  suo 
exerei'balur ;  that  is,  subdued  the  body  by  toil,  and  averted  the  mind  from  the 
senses  by  prayer,  and  by  meditation  on  divine  things.  Th:it  so  early  as  the 
second  century,  tliis  mode  of  life  was  in  Syria  esteemed  beantit'ul  and  accepla- 
ble  to  God,  appears  from  the  example  of  Narcissus,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  as 
stated  by  Euscbius,  (Hhiov.  Eccles.  L,  vi.  c.  9,  10.  p.  210,  211.)  This  man, 
weary  of  the  assaults  of  ids  enemies,  and  eager  for  a  jihilosophical  life,  retired 
to  unfrequented  places  :  'Eic  rxun^Zu  rdv  tpixoa-op^^v  da-ira^ijuivo^  /3coy  S'laJ^pu;  [p.  669.] 

irdv  To  T«s  eH.K\no-iai  nhii^cs  iv  tp»fj.iats  y-<ii  d^avis-iv  dypoii  havd-dvuv,    ttAuo-to/;  'iriTi 

S'd^piliiv.  Cum  philosophicae  vitac  jam  dudura  amore  teneretur,  relicta  ecclesiae 
plebe,  in  solitudine  ac  deviis  agris  plurimos  annos  delituit.  After  a  long  time  he 
returned  from  solitude  to  his  residence  in  Jerusalem,  and  was  the  admiration  of 
every  body  and  exceedingly  courted  by  the  people  ;  m  «  di'a;:^w/5«crea?  'ivoc-t 
Kut  Tiis  (ptKca-opias,  cum  ob  sccessum  turn  ob  philosophi.im  (sou  philosophi- 
cam  vitfe  formam.)  Therefore,  even  iheii,  the  highest  respect  was  paid  to  those 
who  preferred  solitude  to  society,  and  who,  abandoning  social  life,  retired  into 
deserts.  What  Eusebius  intended  by  the  words  philosophy  and  a  philosophical 
life,  those  ftimiliar  with  the  customs  of  the  ancient  Christians  need  not  to  be 
informed.  For  they  are  aware,  that  the  Christian  Ascetics,  who  sought  the 
health  of  their  souls  in  prayer,  meditation,  forsaking  all  worldly  business,  and 
subduing  and  mortifying  the  body  by  a  spare  and  simple  diet,  were  classed  with 
the  philosophers  and  assumed  the  name  and  the  garb  of  philosophers.  And 
this  high  opinion  of  the  influence  of  solitude  in  sanctifying  the  soul,  like  many 
others,  passed  over  from  the  Pagans  to  the  Christians.  That  such  Egyptians 
as  wished  to  excel  in  virtue,  and  to  prepare  their  souls  for  the  world  of  bliss, 
were  accustomed  from  the  earliest  times,  to  resort  to  solitary  places,  can  be 
shown  by  many  proofs ;  among  which,  I  think,  one  of  peculiar  value  is  found 
in  Heiodotus,  Histor.  L.  ii.  (sec.  36.  p.  102.  edit.  Gronov.)  where  he  mentions  it 
as  a  trait  distinguishing  the  Egyptians  from  all  other  nations,  that  while  others 
shunned  t*lie  society  of  wild  beasts,  the  Egyptians  thought  it  excellent  to  live 

among  them  ;  Ioiti  /ulv  u/.hoia-t  dv^f>ai7roi<rt  ;i(^afic  d-npiocv  S'ltira  droxiKpiTAt,  'Aiyvr- 
Ti'.io-i  cTg  lulu  d->,pi:tcrt  ii  S'laira  i^ri.  Apud  ceteros  mortales  victus  a  for;\rnm  se- 
cretus  est  consortio  :  ^gyptii  autem  cum  feris  vivunt.  Does  not  this  language 
show,  that  many  ages  before  our  Saviour,  there  were  in  Egypt  not  a  few  Ere- 
mites, or  persons  choosing  to  live  in  deserts  among  the  wild  beasts?  And  at 
the  present  day  the  same  customs  prevail  in  Egypt,  not  only  among  Christians, 
but  also  among  Mohammedans.  The  Platonic  and  Pythagort^an  philosophers, 
also,  inspired  their  followers  with  the  love  of  solitude;  and  especially  those 
called  New  Platonists,  the  disciples  of  A7nmonius,  und  the  associates  of  that 
Origen  of  whom  we  are  treating,  were  accustomed  warmly  to  recom- 
mend retirement  and  seclusion  from  society  to  every  one  studious  of  wis- 
dom. In  Porphyrij,  the  great  ornament  of  this  sect,  there  is  a  long  passage  on 
this  subject,  in  his  first  book   ^«pi  aTi;t"*"j    "^  Abstinence  from  flesh;  in  which 


200  Century  III.— Section  80. 

he  speaks  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  sentiments  of  Origen  and  the  leaders 
of  the  mystic  school.  For  he  recommends  that  a  philosopher  make  it  his 
great  object  to  become,  by  contemplation,  united  with  the  really  Existent,  or 
[p.  G70.]  God,  {\  29.  p.  24.)  And  to  obtain  this  bliss,  in  his  opinion,  the  senses 
must  be  repressed  and  restrained,  food  be  withheld  from  the  body,  and  society 
be  abandoned,  and  all  places  where  there  is  danger  to  the  soul.  He  says, 
among  other  things,  (^35.  p.  30  edit.  Cantabr.)  :    "O^iv  oa-n   cTj^'va^tf  dvoa-TATiov 

tdv    TOiovruv    ^apicDV,    iv     Tts     x,at     ^t«     fioiihoui\ov      IttX     Tri^nr'nTTHV     To-     TikU'd-u. 

Unde  quantum  in  nobis  est,  ab  iis  locis  recedere  par  est,  in  quibus  iiiviti  forsan 
in  hostile  agmen  incidemus.  And  this  he  confirms  by  the  example  of  the  early 
Pythagoreans,  who  tu  eptif^orstTA  x^"'^  KaruKovvy  loca  deserlissima  incoluerunt; 

while  others  occupied  rdv  7ro\ca>v  tu  iipa  Kai  TCI  aha-Hy  i^  wv  «  Tcdi(rad7ri\^KaT:ti  rvp/^Hy 

urbium  templa  et  nemora,  a  quibus  omnis  turba  et  tumultus  arcebatur.  By 
comparing  Origen  with  Porphyj-y,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  they  both  belonged  to 
the  same  school ;  for  they  lay  down  the  same  precepts  in  very  nearly  the  same 
words.  I  will  transcribe  a  passage  from  Porphijry  in  the  Latin  translation, 
(§  30.  p.  25.)  in  order  to  show  the  Mystics  of  the  present  day,  whence  came  that 
doctrine  which  they  deem  so  sacred,  and  which  they  suppose  Christ  taught. 
Oportet  nos,  si  ad  ea,  quae  revera  nostra  sunt  et  homini  propria  reverti  velimus, 
qusecunque  ex  raortali  natura  nobis  adscivimus,  una  cum  omni  ad  ea  inclina- 
tione,  qua  illectus  animus  ad  ilia  descendit,  deponere,  recordari  vero  beatee 
illius,  ac  seternae  essentiee,  et  ad  illud  inaspectabile  et  immutabile  properantes 
reditum  htec  duo  curare:  unum,  ut  quidquid  est  mortale  ac  materiale  exuamus, 
alterum,  quomodo  redeamus  et  salvi  ascendamus,  diversi  jam  cum  ascen- 
dimus  a  nobis  ipsis  cum  prius  ad  mortalia  descenderamus.  Intelleetuales  enim 
oiim  eramus.  -  -  Sensibilibus  vero  complicati  sumus. 

§   XXX.    Origen's  Controversies  with  his  Bishop,     Tliat  tlie   au- 

tlior  of  so  many  new  and  singular  opinions  should  have  been 
assailed  and  harassed  by  the  criminations  and  reproaches  of 
many,  is  not  at  all  strange.  And  Origen  himself,  in  his  writings 
yet  extant,  complains  bitterly  of  the  malice,  the  machinations, 
and  the  abuse  of  his  adversaries ;  some  of  whom  condemned  his 
philosophical  explanations  of  Christian  doctrines,  and  others  as- 
sailed his  rules  for  interpreting  the  scriptures.  Yet  his  great 
merits,  bis  blameless  life,  and  the  high  reputation  he  had  every- 
where gained,  might  have  overcome  all  this  opposition,  if  he  had 
not  incurred  the  displeasure  and  hatred  of  his  patron,  DemetriuSy 
the  bishop  of  Alexandria.  The  cause  of  .this  enmity  it  is  at  this 
day  difficult  to  trace ;  nor  is  the  generally  reported  envy  of  De- 
metrius free  from  all  doubts,  while  its  effects  are  most  manifest, 
[p.  671.]  For  Demetrius  compelled  Origen  to  flee  his  country, 
and  in  two  councils  convened  at  Alexandria  in  his  absence,  first 


iris- 

10 


Orl(jeris   Controversies.  i>01 

removed  him  from  his  oflico  of  prccoj^tor,  iind  then  deprived  him 
of  his  standing  among  the  priests  !  The  great  majority  of  CI 
tian  bishops  approved  the  sentence ;  but  the  prehates  of  tl 
churclies  in  Achaia,  Palestine.  Phenicia,  and  Arabia,  disapproved 
it.(')  lie  therefore  passed  the  remainder  of  his  very  laborious  life 
at  CiBsarea,  and  at  other  places ;  and  at  last  died  at  Tyre,  A.  D. 
253,  an  old  man,  exhausted  by  his  heroic  sufferings  for  Christ  in 
the  Decian  persecution.  But  after  his  death  he  was  the  occasion 
of  even  greater  disputes  among  polemics,  some  assailing  and 
others  defending  his  reputation  and  his  correctness;  of  which 
long-protracted  and  unhappy  contests,  the  history  of  the  follow- 
ing centuries  will  exhibit  abundant  evidence. 

(1)  The  contests  of  Demetrius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  with  Origen,  which 
gave  rise  to  long  and  fierce  conflicts,  greatly  disquieting  the  church  during  seve- 
ral ages,  have  been  much  discussed ;  but  the  causes  of  the  contention  are  in- 
volved in  great  obscurity,  or,  at  least,  are  not  so  palpable  as  many  suppose. 
For  all  our  information  must  be  drawn  from  a  few  not  very  perspicuous  pas- 
sages in  the  early  writers  ;  time  having  deprived  us  of  the  second  part  of  Euse- 
bius'  Apology  for  Origen,  which  was  expressly  devoted  to  the  consideration 
and  illustration  of  this  subject.  See  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  (L.  vi.  c.  23. 
p.  224.)  The  same  Eusebius  tells  us,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vi.  c.  8.  p.  209.)  that 
Demetrius  was  moved  by  eiivy  at  the  great  reputation  wiiich  Origen  had  acquir- 
ed, to  persecute  the  man  who  had  once  been  dear  to  him.  So  likewise  Jerome, 
in  his  twenty-ninth  Epistle,  (0pp.  tom.  iv.  P.  ii.  p.  68.)  says  :  Damnatum  esse 
Originem  non  propter  ha3resin,  sed  quia  gloriam  eloquentias  ejus  ot  scientisc 
ferre  non  poterant,  et  illo  dicente  omnes  muti  putabantur.  Relying  on  these 
very  worthy  authors,  nearly  all  the  writers  on  ecclesiastical  history,  and  espe- 
cially those  favorably  inclined  tovvards  Origen,  confidently  assert,  that  the  un- 
worthy controversy  originated  in  the  malevolence  and  envy  of  Demetrius ;  and 
they  pity  the  hard  fortune  of  Origen,  whose  only  offence  was  his  learning,  his 
virtue,  and  his  eloquence.  But  for  my  part, — to  say  nothing  of  the  uncertainty 
of  such  judgments  respecting  the  secret  motives  of  human  actions, — when  I 
survey  attentively  and  weigh  the  occurrences  between  Demetrius  and  Origen, 
I  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  Demetrius'  ill-will  towards  Origen  did  not  arise 
from  envij,  if  by  envy  be  meant  repining  at  the  prosperity  or  fume  of  another. 
For  Demetrius  placed  Origen  at  the  head  of  the  Alexandrian  school,  when  he 
was  a  youth  but  eighteen  years  old,  and  he  afterwards  favored  and  [p.  672.] 
befriended  him  in  various  ways  ;  he  gave  him  honorable  testimonials  and  letters 
of  introduction  when  visiting  other  countries;  sent  envoys  to  escort  him  home, 
afier  a  long  residence  in  Palestine;  and  after  the  disagreement  between  them 
commenced,  he  permitted  him  to  continue  in  his  oflice  at  Alexandria ;  and  at 
last,  did  not  command  him  to  quit  Alexandria,  but  after  he  had  left  the  country 
voluntarily,  called  him  to  account.     Do  these  things  indicate  a  mind  envious  at 


202  Century  TIL— Section  30. 

the  reputation  and  virtues  of  Origen  ?  Persons  envious  of  (he  vii  lues  or  elo- 
quence of  others,  do  not  bring  them  before  the  public  and  commend  them  ; 
they  do  not  invite  them  to  return  from  abroad,  do  not  confer  favors  on  them  ; 
but  rather,  they  depress  them,  treat  them  witii  neglect,  and  wish  them  away  from 
their  presence.  Some  other  cause,  therefore,  in  my  opinion,  must  be  sought 
for  this  conflict. — I  will  first  state  what  appears  to  me  the  true  history  of  the 
case ;  and  then,  as  direct  testimony  is  wanting,  I  will  argue  from  the  cii-cum- 
stances  of  the  case.  -  -  Demetrius  cheerfully  gave  Origen  employment  and  oflice  ; 
he  was  pleased  with  tlie  honors  and  applause  w'hich  Origen  gained;  he  allov\ed 
him  to  visit  other  countries  and  churches  which  needed  his  aid,  notwithstanding 
he  knew  that  Origen  would  acquire  fresh  laurels  by  these  journe3's;  and  finally, 
he  was  unwilling  that  a  man  whom  he  knew  to  be  so  great  an  ornament  and 
sup[)c»rt  to  the  church  of  Alexandria,  should  be  removed  or  taken  from  him.  No 
person  can  doubt  any  of  these  things,  wlio  shall  even  superficially  examine  the 
acts  of  Origen  and  Demetrius.  But  this  same  Demetrius  wished  Origen  to  re- 
main in  the  station  he  was  now  in,  and  not  to  be  raided  higher,  or  be  put  in 
orders  and  take  a  place  among  the  presbyters  of  the  Alexandrian  church.  This 
fact  is  sufficiently  obvious,  the  cause  of  it  is  not  equally  clear.  Those  favoring 
Demetrius  may  conjecture,  either  that  the  bishop  supposed  a  man  who  had 
emasculated  himself  would  be  a  dishonor  to  the  sacred  office,  or  that  the 
bishop  feared  lest,  if  made  a  presbyter,  Origen  would  neglect  his  duties  in  the 
scliool.  Those  who  believe  fully  what  the  ancients  say  of  the  envy  of  Deme- 
trius, may  suppose  that  he  was  afraid  that  a  man  like  Origen,  long  held  in  vene- 
ration, and  superior  to  his  bishop  in  many  branches  of  learning,  if  made  a  pres- 
byter, would  acquire  too  much  influence  ;  or  that,  if  authorized  to  preach  in 
public,  his  eloquence  would  obscure  the  dignity  and  the  fame  of  the  bishop. 
On  the  other  hand,  Origen  believed  that  his  services  and  merits  entitled  him  to 
promotion.  Those  who  had  presided  over  the  catechetic  school  of  Alexandria 
before  him,  Pantccnus,  Clement,  and  doubtless  others,  had  been  made  presby- 
ters ;  and  therefore  he,  being  in  no  respect  inferior  to  them,  thought  himself 
worthy  of  the  same  honor.  But  when  he  could  not  obtain  from  Demetrius  the 
honor  to  which  he  felt  himself  entitled,  he  went  away  to  Palestine,  and  at  Ca3sa- 
rea  imprudently  obtained  that  honor  from  other  hands.  And  hence  those  sad 
[p.  673.]  scenes!  Hence  that  wrath  of  Demetrius! — I  will  now  show,  from 
the  circumstances  of  the  case,  as  far  as  I  can,  that  such  were  the  facts. 

In  the  year  215,  or  a  little  after,  a  severe  persecution  under  Caraealla  hav- 
ing arisen  at  Alexandria,  Origen,  at  that  time  about  forty  years  old,  sought 
safety  in  flight,  and  proceeding  to  Palestine,  he  took  residence  at  Cresarea. 
There  the  bishops  honored  him,  by  allowing  him  to  address  the  public  assem- 
blies, and  in  the  presence  of  the  bishops.  This  gave  offence  to  Demetrius.  But 
the  Palestine  bisho-ps  defended  their  proceeding,  and  told  Demetrius,  that  it  had 
long  been  customary  among  Christians  for  the  bishops  to  invite  those  whom 
they  knew  to  be  fit  persons  to  teach  publicly,  even  if  they  had  not  been  made 
presbyters.  Whether  Demetrius  was  satisfied  with  this  excuse  or  not,  is  un- 
certain ;  but  this  is  certain,  he  not  only  wrote  to  Origen  requn-mg  him  to  return 
home  and  attend  to  the  duties  of  his  public  office  in  Alexandria,  but,  as  Origen 


Oricfcii's  Controversies.  203 

perhaps* made  some  delay,  lie  sent  deacons  to  Palestine  to  bring  him  back.  See 
Evsehiim,  (Hist.  Ec'cles.  L.  vi.  c.  19.  p.  221,  222.  Those  facts  show,  I.  That 
Ori^'-en,  at  that  time,  notwithstanding  his  reputation  for  eloquence,  was  debarred 
from  the  pulpit,  or  from  preaching  in  public,  by  his  bishop.  II.  That  Deme- 
trius would  not  allow  him  to  perform  the  functions  of  a  public  teacher,  even 
among  foreign  churches  ;  doubtless,  from  a  fear  that  he  would  insist  on  doing 
the  same  at  Alexandria,  and  would  thus  open  his  way  to  the  rank  of  a  presby- 
ter. III.  Yet  he  esteemed  Origen  very  highly ;  and  he  considered  his  labors 
not  only  useful,  but  even  necessary,  to  the  church  of  Alexandria.  This  appears 
from  his  desire,  and  even  great  earnestness,  to  have  the  man  return  home. 
For,  as  Origen  did  not  at  once  obey  the  letter  of  recall,  the  bishop  sent  envoys 
to  Palestine,  to  press  him  with  arguments  and  persuasives  on  the  subject.  It 
seems,  that  Origen  manifested  a  disposition  to  remain  in  Palestine,  where  he 
received  greater  honor  from  the  bishops  than  he  received  at  Alexandria ;  but 
Demetrius  thought  the  church  of  Alexandria  could  not  part  with  so  great  a 
man  without  a  serious  loss.  Perhaps  also  the  deacons  v.ho  were  sent  to  Pales- 
tine, were  instructed  to  watch  Origen,  lest  on  his  way  he  should  do  as  he  had 
done  in  Palestine,  and  by  his  preaching  draw^  forth  the  admiration  and  respect 
of  the  people.  Hence,  IV.  we  may  conclude,  that  Demetrius  felt  no  envy 
against  Orige»  ;  for  if  the  virtues  and  the  learning  of  the  man  had  been  annoy- 
ing to  him,  he  would  gladly  have  had  him  remain  out  of  the  country.  Yet  he  was 
unwilling  to  enroll  him  among  the  presbyters  of  the  Alexandrian  church.  And, 
undoubtedly,  he  did  not  follow  the  example  of  the  Palestine  bishops,  and  per- 
mit Origen  to  preach  in  public ;  but,  as  Eusebiiis  clearly  intimates,  he  required 
him  to  devote  himself  wholly  to  the  school. 

After  a  pretty  long  interval, — in  the  year  228,  as  learned  men  have  sup- 
posed,— Origen  again  took  a  journey  to  Achaia ;  not  without  the  [p.  674.] 
knowledge  and  consent  of  Demetrius  his  bishop,  as  Photius  affirms,  (Biblio- 
theca,  Cod.  cxviii.  p.  298.)  but,  as  Jerome  testifies,  (Catal.  Scriptor.  Eccles.  c.  54 
and  62.)  with  the  consent  of  the  bishop,  and  furnished  by  him  with  honorable 
testimonials,  or  an  Episiola  ecclesiastica.  On  this  journey,  as  he  was  passing 
through  Palestine,  he  was  ordained  a  presbyter  by  his  friends  and  admirers, 
Thcoctistus  bishop  of  Ca3serea,  and  Alexander  bishop  of  Jerusalem.  (Eusehius, 
Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vi.  c.  8.  p.  209;  Jerome,  CataL  Scriptor.  Eccl.  c.  54;  Phoiius, 
Bibliotheca,  Cod.  cxviii.  p.  298.) — On  hearing  this,  the  wrath  of  Demetrius 
burst  forth  ;  and  he  despatched  letters  through  the  Christian  world,  severely 
censuring  both  Origen  and  the  bishops  who  ordained  him.  His  allegation 
against  Origen  is  stated  by  Eusehius.  It  was,  that  a  man  who  had  mutilated 
himself,  though  learned  and  of  great  merit,  is  unworthy  of  the  priesthood ; 
and  therefore,  Origen  had  grievously  sinned,  by  consenting  to  become  a  teacher 
in  the  church,  while  conscious  of  the  crime  he  had  formerly  committed.  It  ap- 
pears that  even  then,  voluntary  eunuchs  were  excluded  from  the  priesthood,  if 
not  by  formal  canons,  (of  which  there  is  no  certain  evidence,)  at  least  by 
common  usage  among  Christians,  For,  unless  we  suppose  this,  we  cannot  un- 
derstand how  Demetrius,  a  man  of  high  character  and  well  versed  in  ccclcsias- 
tical  law,  should  venture,  on  this  ground,  to  pronounce  Origen  unworthy  of  the 


204  Centimj  III.— -Section  30. 

priestliood.  But  this  stain  upon  the  character  of  the  pious  and  learned 
man,  was  not  known  by  the  bishops  who  ordained  him.  Therefore,  as  De- 
metrius assailed  them  also,  accusing  them  of  violating  ecclesiastical  law,  we 
are  obliged  to  suppose  that  their  offence  was  of  a  different  nature.  What  it 
was,  no  ancient  writer  has  informed  us ;  but  it  may  be  inferred  from  what 
Jerome  says,  (Catal.  Script.  Eccl.  c.  G2.)  namely,  that  Alexander,  the  bishop  of 
Jerusalem,  in  reply  to  the  accusation  of  Demetrius,  alleged  the  honorable  tes- 
timonials given  by  Demetrius  to  Origen  on  his  setting  out  for  Achaia.  From 
this  it  is  manifest,  if  I  do  not  mistake,  that  Demetrius  criminated  tiie  ordaining 
bishops,  for  admitting  Origen  to  the  Presbytersliip,  without  the  knowledge  and 
consent  of  Demetrius  his  bishop,  and  without  consulting  him  in  the  matter. 
Alexander  replied,  that  he  and  his  associates  looked  upon  the  splendid  testimo- 
nials of  Demetrius  which  Origen  carried  with  him,  as  supplying  the  place  of  an 
express  consent ;  and  that  they  could  not  suppose  a  man  so  highly  recom- 
mended by  him,  to  be  unworthy  of  the  priesthood.  How  the  business  was 
conducted  does  not  fully  appear,  on  account  of  the  silence  of  the  ancient  writers ; 
yet  a  careful  attention  may  clear  up  much  of  the  obscurity  of  the  transaction. 
In  the  first  place,  I  will  cheerfully  concede,  that  Origen  himself  did  not  request 
ordination  from  the  Palestine  bishops;  but  only  did  not  refuse  it,  when  offered 
[p.  675.]  by  them.  And  I  have  little  difficulty  in  assigning  a  reason  why  they 
should  wish  to  ordain  him.  They  wished  that  Origen  might  publicly  instruct 
Christians,  and  expound  to  them  the  holy  scriptures,  as  he  had  done  with  great 
approbation  during  his  former  journey.  But  he,  recollecting  the  great  indigna- 
nation  of  Demetrius,  when  he  had  before  allowed  such  functions  to  be  assigned 
him,  would  not  consent  to  their  wishes,  because  he  was  not  an  ordained  pres- 
byter. To  remove  this  obstacle  out  of  his  way,  the  bishops  declared  their  wil- 
lingness to  ordain  him ;  and  Origen  consented.  I  am  led  to  judge  thus 
fiivorably  of  Origen's  motives,  by  the  exemplary  piety  of  the  man,  and  by  the 
knowledge  of  human  conduct;  both  of  which  require  us,  in  a  case  of  doubt 
and  uncertainty,  to  prefer  the  most  favorable  opinion.  And  yet  I  think  it  mani- 
fest, that  Origen  despaired  of  obtaining  ordination  from  the  hands  of  Deme- 
trius, and  at  the  same  time  desired,  though  modestly,  to  attain  that  honor.  For, 
if  he  had  either  contemned  the  office  of  a  presbyter,  or  had  supposed  he  could 
obtain  it  from  Demetrius,  he  would  never,  although  urged  to  it,  have  consented 
to  receive  the  office  from  these  bishops.  Being  a  sagacious  man,  he  could  easily 
foresee,  that  Demetrius  would  be  offended  with  both  him  and  the  bishops,  for 
the  transaction  was  undoubtedly  discourteous  towards  Demetrius.  And  the  per- 
son wlio  would  incur  the  resentment  of  a  powerful  man,  rather  than  not  obtain 
a  certain  place,  if  he  is  not  stupid  or  altogether  thoughtless,  shows  that  he  has 
not  a  little  desire  for  that  place.  As  for  Demetrius,  though  I  admit  that  he 
showed  neither  prudence  nor  gentleness,  nor  a  due  regard  for  Origen's  merits, 
yet  I  do  not  see  how  he  can  be  charged  with  eniy.  From  this  vicious  state  of 
mind  he  is  sufficiently  exculpated,  first,  by  the  noble  testimonial  of  his  affection 
and  esteem  for  Origen,  given  him  when  he  set  out  for  Achaia;  and  he  is  still 
more  proved  innocent  by  the  fact  that,  although  offended  with  Origen,  and  be- 
lievinr*-  that  he  had  just  cause  for  resentment,  he  nevertheless  was  not  at  all 


Origeiis   Controversies.  205 

opposed  to  his  return  to  Alexandria,  and  to  his  rosuniplion  of  his  duties  in  the 
BL'liool.  It  is  not  usual  lor  the  envious  to  wish  thosf,  whoso  honors  and  tame 
they  fear  will  injure  them,  to  live  by  their  side,  and  to  till  respectable  and  im- 
portant stations.  Demetrius  would  have  directed  Origen  to  remain  in  Pales- 
tine, if  he  had  supposed  his  new  oflieial  standing  would  cause  a  diminution  of 
his  own  authority  and  fame.  Nor  is  it  an  indication  of  envy,  that  he  publicly 
professed  to  wish  only  for  more  prudence  in  the  ordaining  bishops,  and  more 
modesty  in  Origen,  who  had  not  resisted  the  proposal  of  his  admirers.  For 
this  declaration  nught  have  proceeded  from  other  motives,  either  praiseworthy 
or  censurable. 

The  commotions  originating  from  Origen's  elevation  to  the  priesthood, 
did  not  prevent  his  completing  his  begun  journey  to  Achaia ;  after  [p.  676.] 
which  he  returned  to  Alexandria,  and  there  resumed  the  duties  of  his  office. 
Nor  did  Demetrius  oppose  his  bearing  the  title  and  enjoying  the  rank  of  a  pres- 
byter ;  for  if  he  had  been  so  disposed,  he  could  have  degraded  him.  Nay, 
several  learned  men  have  thought,  that  Demetrius  actually  assigned  him  a  place 
among  the  presbyters  of  his  church.  They  conclude  so,  from  the  sentence 
pronounced  against  Origen  by  the  emperor  Justinian  in  the  sixth  century,  in 
which  he  is  expressly  called  a  Presbyter  ecclesicc  AlexandriiKC.  It  is  at  least 
very  probable,  that  Demetrius,  either  expressly  or  tacitly,  allowed  him  to  sit 
among  the  presbyters,  provided  he  would  continue  to  fulfil  the  duties  assigned 
him  in  the  Alexandrian  school. — On  returning  to  Alexandria  in  228,  Origen  not 
only  resumed  his  former  labors,  but  he  also  commenced  an  exposition  of  the 
Gospel  of  St.  John,  (Origenes,  Comra.  in  Johann.  0pp.  tom.  ii,  p.  3.  edit.  Hue- 
tianse.)  ;  and  also  wrote  other  books,  among  which  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccl.  L.  vi. 
c.  24.  p.  225.)  mentions  his  celebrated  work  de  Principiis.  But  in  the  midst  of 
these  labors,  a  new  storm  burst  upon  him  ;  at  first,  indeed,  quite  moderate  and 
endurable  ;  for,  (in  tom.  vi.  in  Johann.  p.  94.)  he  writes :  Jesus  Christ  rebuked 
the  whids  and  the  ivaves  of  the  troubled  sea  ;  and  thus,  even  during  the  storm,  he 
could  carry  forward  his  exposition  of  St.  John  as  far  as  the  fifth  tome.  Gra- 
dually,  however,  the  storm  increased  in  violence,  and  at  last  became  so  great, 
that  in  the  year  231  he  forsook  Alexandria,  leaving  his  school  under  the  care  of 
Heraclas,  one  of  his  earliest  pupils,  and  retired  to  Cassarea  among  his  friends. 
{Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  L.  vi.  c.  26.  p.  228.) — Respecting  his  presbytership,  there 
was  no  longer  any  contention  ;  so  that  there  must  have  been  some  other  cause 
of  disagreement  between  him  and  Demetrius,  which,  unaccountably,  neither 
his  friends  nor  his  enemies  have  stated,  although  they  had  abundant  occasion  to 
speak  of  it.  For,  what  Epiphanius  relates,  (Hieres.  Ixiv.  c.  2.)  that  Origen 
■was  so  frightened  by  the  threat  of  an  atrocious  insult  to  his  person  by  an 
Ethiopian,  that  he  consented  to  sacrifice  to  the  Gods, — is  very  questionable ; 
and,  if  true,  could  not  have  produced  the  new  contest  between  Demetrius  and 
him  after  his  return.  This  new  contest  lasted  more  than  two  years,  as  wc 
have  already  learned  from  Origen  himself;  and,  being  protracted  through  va- 
rious vicissitudes,  Origen  was  able,  during  its  continuance,  to  compose  ^/?re  of 
his  tomes  on  the  Gospel  of  John,  besides  other  works.  But  if  Origen  had,  un- 
willingly, paid  some  worship  to  the  gods,  and  his  bishop  had  accounted  him  a 


20G  Century  IIL—Scctioii  30. 

criminal  for  it,  tlie  whole  matter  iniglU  have  been  speedily  settled ;  for  Deme- 
trius had  only  to  call  a  council,  and  debar  the  criminal  from  the  sacred  rites, 
which  was  the  canonical  punishment  for  those  who  sacrificed  to  the  gods.  But 
[p.  677.]  tiie  bisliop,  though  he  harassed  Origen,  yet  still  allowed  him  to  per- 
form his  official  duties,  and  even  to  retain  the  rank  of  a  presbyter  which  he  had 
acquired  in  Palestine.  After  surveying  the  whole  case,  and  carefully  weighing 
all  the  circumstances,  I  conclude  the  cause  of  disagreement  was  this:  that  Ori- 
gen, as  he  was  an  ordained  presbyter,  wished  to  enjoy  all  the  prerogatives  of  a 
presbyter,  to  preach  in  public,  to  sit  in  the  council  of  the  presbyters,  and  to  be 
rei-koncd  as  one  of  them  ;  but  Demetrius  was  opposed  to  it.  He  admitted,  in- 
deed, that  Origen  was  a  presbyter,  at  least  nominally,  and  he  would  give  him 
the  title,  but  he  would  not  allow  him  to  address  the  people  from  the  pulpit. 
Perhaps,  also,  as  his  feelings  were  now  alienated  from  Origen,  he  frequently 
criticised  and  assailed  the  opinions  which  Origen  advanced  in  the  school  and 
elsewhere,  and  his  expositions  of  the  scriptures ;  while  Origen  defended  those 
opinions  and  expositions  against  the  bishop. 

However  this  may  be,  Origen  being  weary  of  the  perpetual  reproofs  or  in- 
juries he  received  from  Demetrius,  in  order  to  enjoy  more  liberty  and  peace,  re- 
linquished his  employment  in  the  year  231,  and  secretly  retired  to  Palestine; 
where  he  w^as  very  cordially  received  by  the  bishops,  and  obtained  all  that  had 
been  denied  him  at  Alexandria.  After  this  his  flight,  Demetrius  commenced  a 
prosecution  against  him ;  for  previously  he  had  not  attempted,  nor  had  been 
disposed  to  attempt,  anything  of  the  kind. — Eusebius,  indeed,  does  not  ex- 
pressly say  that  Origen  left  Alexandria  secretly,  and  without  the  knowledge  of 
Demetrius;  on  the  contrary,  he  clearly  states  that,  on  leaving,  he  surrendered 
his  office  to  Heradas.  From  both  these  circumstances  learned  men  conclude, 
that  Demetrius  w^as  neither  ignorant  of  his  design  to  leave  Alexandria,  nor  dis- 
satisfied at  his  going.  For  if  he  had  either  not  known  of  his  going,  or  had 
been  displeased  w'ith  it,  would  he  have  authorized  him  to  transfer  his  school  to 
another  man,  and  one  of  his  own  selection  ? — But  here,  undoubtedl}^  there  is 
misapprehension.  The  circumstance  omitted  by  Eusebius,  is  indicated  by  Ori- 
gen himself,  (Coram,  in  Johann.  tom.  vi.  p.  94.)  where  he  compares  his  depar- 
ture from  Egypt  with  the  Exodus  of  the  Hebrews,  and  says:  Deum,  qui  popu- 
lum  suuni  ex  ^gypto  eduxit,  se  quoque  ex  servitute  extraxisse.  But  nothing 
could  have  been  more  inapposite  than  such  a  comparison,  if  he  had  gone  away 
with  the  free  consent  of  Demetrius.  And  as  to  what  Eusebius  says  of  his 
transferring  the  Alexandrian  school  to  Heradas,  the  language  is  pressed  too  far. 
For  Eusebius  does  not  say,  that  he  commiUed  or  transferred  his  school  to  He- 
radas, but  that  he  Ze/]:  it  to  him :  'Hpax.\a  JuS'aa-Kakiiov  xAraKiirn.  Scliolam  Herache 
reUquii,  (not,  tradidit.)  See  Eusebius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vi.  c.  26.  p.  228.)  He- 
raclas  had  been  his  colleague,  and  had  taught  the  younger  boys;  and  now  Ori- 
gen left  the  school  to  his  sole  management.  Origen's  departure  was  therefore 
clandestine ;  and  his  voluntary  dereliction  of  an  ofiice  which  for  so  many  years 
he  had  usefully  filled,  roused  the  ire  of  Demetrius  to  such  a  pitch,  that  he  de- 
[p.  678.]  termined  to  punish  him.  He  acted,  indeed,  in  a  manner  unbecoming 
a  bishop,  and  yet  not  without  some  semblance  of  justice.     For  the  man  who 


Orif/cn's   Controversies.  207 

abandons  an  onicc  committod  to  liim,  without  jL^iving  notice,  or  saying  any  tlunt» 
to  him  from  wliom  he  received  it,  appears  to  injure  his  patron  nuiteiiully,  and  is 
quite  culpable.  Besides,  this  very  indignation  of  DiMnetrius,  though  unjustilia- 
ble,  proves  him  not  guilty  of  that  eiuy  charged  upon  him.  For  it  shows,  that  he 
was  unwiliiiig  to  part  with  the  services  of  Origen,  that  he  felt  most  sensiblv  the 
great  loss,  both  to  the  church  and  the  school ;  but  such  feelings  could  not  find 
a  place  in  an  envious  mind.  Demetrius  envied  the  Palestinians  thii  pos:«es>ion 
of  so  great  and  so  talented  a  man,  but  he  did  not  envy  Origen. 

Therefore,  as  it  was  the  only  way  in  which  he  could  punish  Origen  fur  the 
detriment  to  the  church  and  the  injury  to  himself,  Demelrius  summoned  acoun- 
cil  of  bishops,  with  some  presbyters.     So  .Photius  states,  from   Pamphllus' 
Apology  for  Origen,  (Bibliotheea,  Cod.  cxviii.  p.  298  :  Si/nodum  episcoporum  et 
presbijterorum  qaonmdam).     We  may  here  notice,  that  Pamphilus  applies  tlie 
pronoun  some,  {quorumlam,  Tirwy,)  to  the  presbyters,  but  not  to  the  buliops. 
Hence,  if  I  can  judge,  Demetrius  summoned  all  the  bishops  under  his  jurisdic- 
tion.    And  this  construction  is  confirmed  by  what  will  soon  be  said  respecting 
his  second  council.     The  reason  why  he  snmtuoncd  all  the  bishops  of  Egypt, 
but  only  some  of  the  presbyters  of  Alexandria,  will  be  obvious.    He  well  knew, 
that  most  of  the  presbyters  were  favorable  to  Origen,  their  preceptor  and  friend, 
whom  they  admired  for  his  piety;  and,  therefore,  he  summoned  only  such  of  the 
pre.-^byters,  as  he  supposed  were  more  attached  to  himself  than  to  Origen.  But 
the  bishops  had  not  been  so  intimate  with  Origen;  and  therefore,  Demetrius 
hoped,  with  less  difiieulty,  to  bring  the  majority  of  them  to  vote  according  to 
his  wishes.     But  he  was  disappointed.     For  the  major  part  of  the  council 
decided,  as  Photius  informs  us  from  Pamphilus,  in  the  passage  just  mentioned : 
That  Origen  should  be  expelled  fro?n  Alexandria,  (Alexandria  quidera  pellen- 
dum,)  and  should  not  be  permitted  to  reside  or  teach  there;  but  that  he  should  not 
be  degraded  from  the  priesthood.    Demetrius,  who  wished  to  have  Origen  degrad- 
ed, had  expected  a  severer  sentence.    But,  either  Photius  or  Pamphilus,  I  think, 
must  have  stated  the  decision  incorrectly.     How,  I  ask,  could  these  Christiim 
bishops,  who  were  themselves  scarcely  tolerated  in  Alexandria  and  Egypt,  and 
who  had  no  influence  or  power  whatever  in  the  state — how  could  this  despised  and 
hated  body  of  plebeians  expel  Origen  from  Alexandria,  or  send  him  into  exile  ? 
If  those  honest  men  had  attempted  it,  they  would  have  acted  just  about  as 
wisely  as  the  Quakers  of  London,  or  the  Mennonitcs  of  Amsterdam  would,  if 
they  should  attempt  to  banish  from  their  city  some  honorable   and   upright 
citizen:  whicli  all  would  regard  as  showing  a  lack  of  common  sense,  t  [p.  679.] 
have,  therefore,  no  doubt,  that  this  council  merely  pronounced  Origen  unworthy 
of  his  post  as  a  teacher  in  the  school  and  dmrch  of  Alexandria.     And  such  a 
sentence,  in  my  opinion,  would  not  have  been  altogether  wrong  or  unjust.  For 
the  man  who  abandons  his  post,  without  the  consent  or  knowledge  of  the  i)er- 
son  who  placed  him  in  it,  is  not  unsuitably  cut  off  from  all  Iiope  of  regaining  it. 
And,  perhaps,  Origen  himself  would  not  have  complained,  if  such  a  decision  had 
been  satisfactory  to  his  adversary.  But  Demetrius  thought,  that  this  deserter  of 
his  post  ought  to  be  more  severely  punished.    He,  therefore,  summoned  another 
council.  As  P/ioa'i^s,  avowedly  copying  from  the  Apology  of  Pamphilus,  writes: 


208  Century  IIL—Sectioii  30. 

Verum  Demotrina  una  cum  ^gypti  episcopis  aliquot,  sacerdotio  quoque  ilium 
abjudicat,  suhscribontibus  etiain  edicto  liuic,  quot([UOt  antea  sulfragati  ei  fuisBeni.. 
(But  Demetrius,  together  with  some  bishops  of  Egypt,  divested  him  also  of  the 
priesthood;  and  this  decree,  moreover,  was  subscribed  by  such  as  had  before 
voted  in  his  favor). — And  here  several  things  deserve  notice,  vviiich  learned  uien, 
in  treating  on  the  subject,  pass  by  in  silence.  I.  In  this  second  council,  only 
some  {aliquot)  of  the  Egyptian  bishops  were  present.  Therefore,  in  the  former 
they  all  were  present.  That  is,  Demetrius  excluded  from  the  second  council, 
those  among  the  bishops  who,  in  the  first  council,  voted  for  the  milder  sentence, 
or  were  for  sparing  Origen.  And  hence  it  appears,  that  the  decree  of  the  first 
council  was  not  passed  unanimously,  but  only  by  a  majority  of  the  council.  II. 
Tliere  were  no  presbyters  present  in  the  second  council.  Hence  it  is  manifest, 
that  all  the  presbyters  were  in  favor  of  Origen,  and  their  zeal  in  his  behalf 
caused  the  milder  sentence  to  pass  the  council.  They,  doubtless,  expatiated  on 
the  great  merits  of  Origen,  in  regard  both  to  the  church  universal,  and  to  the 
church  of  Alexandria  in  particular ;  and  by  such  commendations  they  inclined 
the  minds  of  a  majority  of  the  bishops  to  moderation.  III.  The  bishops,  who 
had  voted  for  Origen  in  the  first  council,  in  acceding  to  the  decree  of  the  second 
council,  changed  their  opinions,  and  came  over  to  the  deci>ion  of  Demetrius  and 
his  associates.  And  this  is  proof,  tliat  in  the  second  council  Demetrius  assailed 
Origen  on  new  grounds,  and  thereby  strengthened  his  cause :  and  that  the  dis- 
senting bishops,  in  view  of  these  new  grounds,  and  being  separated  from  the 
presbyters  who  had  pleaded  the  cause  of  their  preceptor  and  friend,  concluded 
to  yield  the  point.  In  the  state  of  Christian  affairs  at  that  period,  Demetrius 
could  not  have  gained  the  votes  of  those  bishops  who  favored  Origen,  by  mena- 
ces and  violence,  nor  by  gifts  and  promises.  It  is,  therefore,  probable  that  De- 
metrius brought  forward,  and  invidiously  exposed  the  singular  opinions  of  Ori- 
gen, and  his  strange  interpretations  of  Scripture;  and  against  this  new  charge, 
which  was  much  graver  than  the  former,  the  bishops,  most  of  whom  were  not 
learned,  and  perhaps  were  among  those  who  opposed  the  modifying  of  theology 
by  philosophy,  were  unable  to  make  resistance.  That  Origen  was  actually  ac- 
cused and  convicted  of  adulterating  Christianity,  at  least  in  the  second  coun- 
[p.  680.]  cil,  is  adequately  proved,  unless  I  greatly  misjudge,  from  the  single 
declaration  of  Jerorne,  (in  his  Tract  against  Rujfinus,  L.  ii.  c.  5.)  that  Origen 
was  not  only  degraded  from  the  priesthood,  but  was  also  excluded  from  the 
church.  For  in  that  age,  no  Christian  was  excommunicated  and  debarred  from 
the  church,  unless  he  was  either  guilty  of  criminal  conduct,  or  had  injured  the 
cause  of  religion  by  his  errors.  Of  any  criminal  conduct,  neither  Demetrius  nor 
any  other  person  ever  accused  Origen.  Consequently,  we  must  believe,  that 
this  punishment  was  inflicted  on  him  because  of  his  novel  and  noxious  opinions. 
He  had  already  composed  his  well-known  work,  de  Principiis,  yet  extant  in  La- 
tin, which  is  full  of  singular  opinions,  and  of  explanations  of  Ciiristian  doctrines 
never  before  heard  of.  Nor  could  that  book  have  been  unknown  at  that  time 
in  Alexandria,  the  place  where  it  was  written.  From  this  book,  therefore,  it  is 
not  improbable,  Demetrius  derived  his  allegations. — Nearly  all  the  Christian 
churches  approved  the  sentence  passed  upon  Origen ;  for  Demetrius,  by  letters, 


Disputes  on  the   Trinifj/.  209 

excited  (hem  ngainst  liis  adversary.  But  tliebishop^of  the  fou  Asintie  provin- 
CCS,  Palestine,  Phenicia,  Acliaia,  and  Arabia,  dissented ;  and  ncit.  only  permitted 
Ori<^en  to  live  among-  them  liigiily  respected,  but  also  to  have  the  liberty  of 
teaching  both  publicly  and  pj-ivately.  Nor  is  this  very  strange.  For  the  bishops 
of  Palestine,  who  were  intimately  connected  with  those  of  Phenicia,  were  the 
authors  of  thai  which  brought  upon  the  good  man  all  his  troubles :  that  is,  they 
ordained  him  presbyter.  As  to  the  churches  of  Arabia  and  Achaia,  Origen  had 
laid  them  under  great  obligations  to  him,  by  settling  disputes  among  them,  and 
by  other  kind  olHces. — But  this  transaction,  manifestly,  contains  a  strong  argu- 
ment against  those  who  maintain  that,  in  this  third  century,  all  Christendom  was 
submissive  to  the  authority  and  decisions  of  the  Romish  prelate.  If  this  had 
been  the  fact,  those  bishops  who  honored  and  patronised  Origen,  would  have 
ceased  from  being  in  communion  with  all  other  churches.  And  yet  it  is  certain, 
that  they  were  not  at  all  criminated  for  relying  upon  their  own  judgment,  rather 
than  on  that  pronounced  at  Alexandria,  and  approved  by  the  Romish  prelate. 

§  XXXI.  Disputes  in  the  Church  respecting  the  Trinity  and  the 
person  of  Christ.  That  authority,  which  Origen  attributed  to  rea- 
son or  philosophy — (for  he  held  them  to  be  the  same  thing) — over 
theology  generally,  was  extended  by  others  to  certain  parts  of 
theology  in  particular,  and  especially  to  that  part  which  distin- 
guishes in  the  Divine  Nature  three  persons,  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit.  Closely  connected  Avith  this  doctrine  is,  that 
concerning  the  origin  and  the  dignity  of  Jesus  Christ.  As  this 
division  of  the  Divine  ISTature,  of  which  the  Scriptures  require  a 
belief,  may  seem  to  disagree  with  what  reason  teaches  [p.  681.] 
respecting  the  unity  or  oneness  of  God,  various  persons  attempt- 
ed to  so  explain  it,  as  to  remove  all  disagreement  between  the- 
ology and  philosophy.  Those  who  engaged  in  this  business,  pur- 
sued various  methods ;  if,  indeed,  the  ancients  correctly  appre- 
hended their  views,  which  I  must  confess  is  very  doubtful. 
Wherefore,  about  four  different  opinions  may  be  produced,  re- 
specting the  Holy  Trinity  and  the  Saviour  of  mankind,  advanced 
in  this  century.  These  opinions,  all  the  prelates  of  the  ago 
strenuously  resisted,  casting  their  authors  out  of  the  church.  But 
they  did  not  so  combat  these  opinions  as  to  exterminate  the 
roots  of  the  evil,  and  prevent  the  future  rise  of  similar  opinions. 
For,  although  they  determined  what  should  not  be  believed,  re- 
specting God  and  Christ,  and  thus  suppressed  the  rising  errors; 
yet  they  did  not  determine,  with  equal  care  and  clearness,  what 
should  be  positively  believed,  and  in  what  terms  the  Scriptural 
doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  God  should  be  expressed.    And 

VOL.  II.  15 


210  Ccntur]/  IIL—Sectlon  32. 

tliis  enabled  others,  subsequently,  and  especially  Arius^  to  disturb 
the  church  with  new  explications  of  this  doctrine.(') 

(1)  Tiic  prelates  and  councils  condemned  those  who  subverted  the  distinct 
tion  of  persons  in  the  divine  nature,  and  who  maintained  that  God  is  altogether 
undivided.  Thus  they  denied,  that  the  Son  and  the  holy  Spirit  are  to  be  ex- 
cluded from  the  num!)er  of  the  divine  persons.  Yet,  to  those  who  should  ac- 
knowledge tlu-ec  persons  in  God,  great  liberty  remnined  for  disputing  about  the 
relations  of  these  pci-sons  to  each  other,  tiieir  origin,  their  dignity,  and  their 
parity  or  disparity  ;  and  for  explaining  differently  the  nature,  the  offices,  and 
the  acts  of  the  several  persons.  This  liberty  produced  a  great  variety  of 
opinions,  and  nfforded  to  those  whose  genius  and  inclination  led  them  to  subor- 
dinate revealed  religion  to  reason,  abundant  opportunity  for  introducing  their 
own  fictions  into  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Hence  arose  the  rash  attempts, 
not  only  of  several  individuals,  whose  efforts  excited  little  attention,  but  especi- 
ally of  Arius,  whose  most  unhappy  contests  are  too  well  known.  At  length, 
under  Constantino  the  Great,  the  Nicene  council  abolished  that  liberty,  the 
dangers  of  which  were  not  foreseen  by  the  ancients,  and  defined  precisely,  how 
the  three  divme  persons  are  to  be  viewed,  and  in  what  terms  men  should  speak 
of  them. 

§  XXXII.    The  Noetian  Controvcr.sy.     At  the  head  of  those  in 

this  century,  who  explained  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  holy  Spirit,  by  the  precepts  of  reason,  stands  Noetus  of 
[p.  682.]  Smyrna ;  a  man  little  known,  but  Avho  is  reported  by 
the  ancients  to  have  been  cast  out  of  the  church  by  presbyters, 
(of  whom  no  account  is  given,)  to  have  opened  a  school,  and  to 
have  formed  a  sect.(')  It  is  stated,  that  being  Avholly  unable  to 
comprehend,  hoAv  that  God  who  is  so  often  in  Scripture  declared 
to  be  one^  and  undivided,  can,  at  the  same  time,  be  manifold;  Noe- 
tus concluded,  that  the  undivided  Father  of  all  things,  united  him- 
self with  the  man  Christ,  vras  born  in  him,  and  in  him  suffered 
and  died.(")  On  account  of  this  doctrine,  his  followers  "were 
called  Patripassians ;  which  name,  though  not  perfectly  correct 
and  appropriate,  yet  appears  to  be  not  altogether  unsuitable  or 
inappropriate.(')  That  Noetus  and  his  followers  believed  as 
above  stated,  must  be  admitted,  if  Ave  place  more  reliance  on  the 
positive  testimony  of  the  ancients,  than  upon  mere  conjecture, 
however  plausible. 

(1)  All  that  can  be  said  of  Noetus,  must  be  derived  from  the  three  following^ 
writers:  Ilippolyfus,  (Sermo  contra  hoeresin  Noeti;  first  published  by  Jo.  Alb. 
Fabricins,  Opp.  Hippolyti,  tom.  ii.  p.  5.  &c.  It  had  before  appeared  in  Latin:) 
Epipkanius,  (Hajres.  L.  vii.  tom.  i.  p.  479.)  and  Theodore^  (Hseret.  Tabular.  L.  iiL 


History  of  Noetus.  oj| 

c.  3.  0pp.  torn.  iv.  p.  227.)  All  that  the  oth(»r  fathers  state,  (c.  g.  Axip:usL'me^ 
Philasiei;  Darnasccnus,)  is  cither  taken  from  the  thi-cc  above  iiaiiuid,  or  is  de- 
rived from  those  who  resorted  to  these  sources.  Thcadorel  is  very  brief:  Hip. 
polyUis  and  Epiphanius  are  more  full  :  both  however,  treat  only  of  the  principal 
tenet  of  Noetus,  and  that  without  method  and  clearness.  They  neither  explain, 
accurately  and  distinctly,  his  erroneous  sentiment;  nor  lucidly  state  either  his 
conduct,  or  the  proceedingrs  of  others  against  him.  And  hence,  but  little  can  bo 
said,  either  of  Noetus  or  of  his  doctrine.  That  he  lived  in  the  third  century,  is 
certain  ;  but  in  wlint  part  of  the  century  he  disturbed  the  peace  of  the  church,  ia 
doubtful.  Hippohj/its  and  TheodoreL  say,  he  was  n  native  of  Smyrna;  but  Epi- 
phanius  calls  him  an  Epliesian.  Perhaps  he  was  born  at  Smyrna,  but  taught  at 
Ephcsus.  Whether  he  was  a  layman,  or  held  some  sacred  otlice,  no  one  has  in- 
formed us.  Both  Hippolijius  and  Epiphanlits  tell  us,  he  had  a  brother;  and  Ihcy 
both  represent  him  as  so  delirious,  that  he  declared  himself  to  be  Moses,  [p.  683.] 
and  his  brother  to  be  Aaron.  But  that  he  was  under  so  great  infatuation,  is  in- 
credible; since  these  very  men  who  (ax  him  with  it,  show,  by  their  discussions, 
that  he  was  no  very  contemptible  reasoner.  I  can  believe,  that  after  his  ex- 
clusion from  the  church,  and  when  laboring  to  establish  his  new. sect,  he  com- 
pared himself  with  Moses,  and  his  brother  with  Aaron;  that  is,  he  claimed,  that 
God  was  using  his  and  his  brother's  instrumentality,  in  the  delivery  of  the  Chris- 
tian people  from  bondage  to  false  religious  principles,  as  he  formerly  employed 
the  services  of  Moses  and  Aaron  in  rescuing  the  Hebrews  from  bondage  in 
Egypt.  And  this  really  invidious  and  uncivil  language,  these  his  enemies  per- 
verted to  a  bad  sense,  thinking  perhaps  that  he  would  gain  few  or  no  adherents, 
if  he  could  be  made  to  appear  insane  or  crazy. — The  blessed  preshyiej's  (ot  fAAna- 
fioi  rfi^SuTipoi)  of  the  church  to  which  he  belonged,  when  they  found  that  he 
taught  diffcrenfly  from  them  respecting  the  person  of  Christ,  required  him  to  give 
account  of  himself  in  an  assembly  of  the  church.  He  dissembled  concerning  his 
views,  which,  at  tiiat  time, only  he  and  his  brother  cherished.  But  after  a  while, 
having  gained  a  number  of  followers,  he  expressed  his  sentiments  more  boldly. 
And  being  again  summoned  before  a  council,  together  with  those  whom  he  had 
seduced  into  error,  and  refusing  to  obey  the  admonitions  of  the  presbyters,  he 
and  his  adherents  were  excluded  from  the  communion  of  the  church.  Thus  Hip- 
polylus  and  Epiphanius  both  state.  Epiphanius  alone  adds,  that  Noetus  and  his 
brother  both  died,  not  long  after  this  sentence  upon  them  ;  and  that  no  Christian 
would  bury  their  bodies.  In  this  there  is  nothing  hard  to  be  believed,  nothing 
inconsistent  with  the  common  custom  of  Christians.  But  I  wonder,  they  should 
not  tell  us  where  these  things  occurred;  I  also  wonder,  that  only  the  blessed  pres- 
byters are  named  as  the  judges,  and  no  mention  made  of  a  bishop.  Some  may, 
perhaps,  infer  that  Noetus  himself  was  the  bishop  of  the  place  where  the 
business  was  transacted.  But  the  usage  of  the  ancient  church  did  not  give  pres- 
byters the  power  of  trying  and  deposing  their  bishop.  I  would  therefore  sug- 
gest, that  there  may  have  been  no  bishop  at  that  time  in  the  place  where  Noetus 
lived.  This  conjecture  is  not  free  from  difliculties,  I  confess;  but  it  has  fewer 
than  the  former  supposition. — Lastl}',  it  should  not  be  omitted,  that  Theodoral^ 
and  he  only,  states  that  Noetus  was  not  the  original  author  of  the  doctrine  fox 


212  Century  Ill.—Scction  32. 

which  he  was  punished;  but  that  he  only  brought  forward  an  error,  which  before 
him  one  Epigonus  had  broached,  and  one  CZwmenes  confirmed;  and  which,  after 
the  death  of  Noetus,  one  Ca//is/ws  continued  to  propagate. 

(2)  The  ancients  are  agreed,  tiiat  Noetus,  while  he  conceived  that  the  doc- 
trine taught  by  the  Church  could  not  be  reconciled  with  those  texts  of  Scripture, 
which  deny  that  there  are  any  gods  b"side  the  one  God,  the  Parent  of  all  things, 
(Exod.  iii.  6.  and  xx.  3.  Isa.  xlv.  5.  Baruch  iii.  36.  Lsa.  xlv.  14. — for  both  HippO' 
lytus  and  Epiphanius  distinctly  tell  us,  that  it  was  on  these  texts  he  based  his 
doctrine,) — while  Noetus  thus  conceived,  and  yet  could  not  doubt  at  all,  that 
Christ  is  called  God  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  he  fell  into  the  belief  that  the  one 
[p.  684.]  supreme  God,  who  is  called  the  Father  of  mankind  and  especially  of 
Christ,  took  on  himself  human  nature,  in  the  person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and, 
by  his  sufferings  and  death,  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  men.     Ilippolylus 

(SermO  in  Noet.  ^  1.)  says:  *£?«  tov  XP^*^"^""  avrdv  iivui  rdv  nuripa,  Kai 
dvrdv  ToV  raTtfa  yiyivvyi(r^ai  yai  Treirovd'aai  Kui  aTroTtd-VifKivai.  Dixit  Chris- 
tum eundem  esse  pntrem,  ipsumque  patrem  genitum  esse,  passum  et  mortuum. 
According  to  Epiphanius,  Noetus  replied  to  the  reproofs  of  the  presbyters,  by 
saying:  Quid  mali  feci  ?  Unum  Deum  veneror,  unum  novi,  (xat  ct;»  aWov  v>,»r 
uuTGVy  ytwud-'ivra,  TTiTTovd-cniLy  dTTo^dvovTa,)  nec  praeter  ipsum  alterum  natum,  pas- 
sum,  mortuum.     And  a  little  after,  he  makes  the  Noetians  say:     o'w  roW'.ix 

©tovc   \iyofJ(.ivy   cXX'  ha  ©«dv  d^rstS-if,    durdv   traripa    tov    viovy     dvrdv    ddv,    x.ai   7ri~ 

frovQ-ora.  Noii  plures  Deos  affirmamus,  sed  unum  duntaxat  Deum,  qui  et  pati 
nihil  possit,  et  idem  filii  pater  sit,  ac  filius,  qui  passus  est.  But  Theodcrel  the 
most  explicitly  of  all  expresses  their  dogma,  (whose  words  I  give  only  in 
Latin,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,)  thus:  Unum  dicunt  Deum  et  patrem  esse  --  non 
apparentera  ilium,  quando  vult,  et  apparentem,  cum  voluerit-- genitum  et  in- 
genitum,  ingenitum  quidem  ab  initio,  genitum  vero,  quando  ex  virgine  nasci 
voluit;  impassibilem  et  imraortalem,  rursusque  patibilem  et  mortalem.  Tmpas- 
sibilis  enim  cum  esset,  crucis  passionem  sua  sponte  sustinuit.  (He  adds  :)  Hunc 
et  filium  appellant  et  patrem,  prout  usus  exegerit,  hoc  et  illud  nomen  sortien- 
tem.  What  Epiphanius  tells  us,  viz.  that  the  Noetians  made  Christ  to  he.  both 
the  Father  and  the  Son;  or  as  Theodoret  expresses  it.  They  called  Christ  both  the 
Son  and  the  Father,  as  the  occasion  required; — This,  both  the  ancients  and  the 
moderns  have  understood  in  a  worse  sense,  than  was  necessary.  For  they  tell 
us,  that  Noetus  believed  the  Father  and  the  Son  to  be  one  and  the  same  person; 
tliat  this  person  bore  the  name  of  Father,  before  he  connected  himself  with  the 
man  Christ;  but  took  the  title  Son,  after  his  union  with  the  man  Christ:  so  that 
he  could  be  denominated  both  the  Father  and  the  Son,  being  the  Father  if  view- 
ed in  himself  and  apart  from  Christ,  but  being  the  Son  if  viewed  as  coupled  with 
the  man  Christ.  From  this  exposition  of  his  views,  consequences  are  frequently 
drawn  which  are  discreditable  to  the  reputation  and  talents  of  Noetus.  But  such 
were  not  the  views  of  Noetus;  as  an  attentive  reader  may  learn  from  the  very 
confutations  of  them.  He  distinguished  the  person  of  the  Father  from  that  of 
the  Son  :  the  Father  is  that  supreme  God  who  created  all  things ;  the  Son  of  God 
is  the  man  Christ,  whom  he  doubtless  called  the  Son  of  God,  emphatically,  be- 
cause of  his  miraculous  procreation  from  the  virgin  Mary.     The  Father,  when 


Opinions  of  Noetus.  213 

joined  to  this  Son,  did  not  lose  the  name  or  the  dignity  of  tlie  Father;  nor  waa 
he  properly  made  the  Son :  rather,  lie  remained,  and  will  ever  remain,  the  Fa- 
ther; nor  can  he  change  either  hi^  name  or  his  nature.  Yet,  inasmuch  [p.  685.] 
as  the  Father  is  most  intimately  joined  to  the  Son,  and  become  one  person  with 
him;  therefore  the  Father,  although  his  nature  is  distinct  from  the  nature  of  the 
Son,  can,  in  a  certain  sense,  be  called  the  Son.  And  thus  Noiitus  uttered  no- 
thing more  absurd,  than  we  do  when  we  say,  in  accordance  with  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, God  is  a  man  :  a  man  is  God  :  God  became  man :  a  man  became  God.  He 
only  substituted  the  names  Father  and  .So;?,  in  place  of  the  terms  GoJ  and  man. 
And  his  propositions,  The  Father  is  the  Son,  and  the  Father  became  the  Son,  are 
equivalent  with  ours,  God  is  a  man,  God  became  man ;  and  they  must  be  explain- 
ed in  the  same  manner  in  which  ours  are  explained,  namely,  as  the  result  of 
what  we  call  the  hypostatic  union.  The  only  difference  between  him  and  us,  was, 
that  he,  by  the  Father,  understood  the  whole  divine  nature,  wliich  he  considered 
incapable  of  any  division ;  we,  by  God,  intend  a  divine  person  distinct  from  the 
person  of  the  Father.  The  idea  which  he  annexed  to  the  word  Son,  was  the 
same  as  that  we  annex  to  the  word  man.  It  is  certainly  altogether  false,  that 
Noetus  and  all  those  called  Patripassians  believed,  (what  we  find  stated  in  so 
many  books  as  unquestionable,)  that  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
are  only  three  designations  of  one  and  the  same  person.  According  to  the  ap- 
prehensions of  this  sect,  the  Father  is  the  name  of  the  ditine  person  or  God,  the 
Son  is  the  name  of  the  human  person  or  the  man.  As  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  none 
of  the  ancients  inform  us,  what  were  the  views  of  Noetus.  Yet  from  his  deny- 
ing that  God  is  distributed  into  three  persons,  it  must  be  manifest,  that  he  viewed 
the  term  Holy  Spirit  not  as  the  name  of  a  divine  person,  but  as  designating  either 
a  divine  energy,  or  some  nature  distinct  from  God. 

Therefore  the  system  of  Noetus,  so  far  as  it  can  novv  be  ascertained  from  the 
writings  of  the  ancients,  was  this.  I.  Very  explicit  declarations  of  Scripture  put 
it  beyond  all  question,  that,  besides  that  God  who  is  called  the  Father  of  all 
things,  there  are  no  Gods.  11.  But  those  who  distinguish  three  persons  in  God, 
multiply  Gods,  or  make  more  than  one  God.  111.  Therefore  that  distinction  of 
persons  in  God,  must  be  rejected  as  being  false.  IV.  Yet  the  Holy  Scriptures 
clearly  tench,  that  God  was  in  Christ,  and  that  Christ  was  the  supreme  God,  from 
whom  all  things  originated.  V.  To  bring  the  two  representations  into  harmony, 
therefore,  we  must  believe,  that  the  God  who  is  in  Christ,  is  that  supreme  God 
whom  the  Scriptures  call  the  Father  of  mankind.  VI.  This  Father,  in  order  to 
bring  relief  to  fallen  men,  procreated  from  the  virgin  Mary,  a  man  free  from  all 
sin,  who  in  a  peculiar  sense  is  called  the  Son  of  God.  VJI.  Thatwa??,  the  father 
60  united  with  himself,  as  to  make  of  himself  and  the  Son  but  one  person.  VIII. 
On  account  of  this  union,  w'hatever  befel  or  occurred  to  that  <Son  or  that  divinely 
begotten  man,  may  also  be  correctly  predicated  of  the  Father,  who  took  him  into 
society  with  his  person.  IX.  Therefore  the  Father,  being  coupled  with  the  Son, 
was  born,  suffered  pains,  and  died.  For  although  the  Father,  in  himself  [p.  686.] 
considered,  can  neither  be  born,  nor  die,  nor  suffer  pains;  yet,  as  he  and  the  Son 
became  one  person, it  maybe  said,  that  he  was  born  and  died.  X.  And  for  the 
same  reason,  the  Father  being  present  in  the  Son,  although  he  remains  still  the 
Father,  he  may  also  be  correctly  called  the  Son. 


214  Cejitury  Ill.—Section  32. 

This  system  subverts  indeed  the  mystery  of  the  Holy  Triniiy,h\it  it  does  no 
injury  to  the  person  or  to  the  offices  of  Christ  the  Saviour,  and  it  is  much  prefe- 
rable to  the  Soeinian  scheme  and  its  kindred  systems.     Moreover,  it  is  no  more 
contrary  to  renson,  than  the  system  which  supposes  a  divine  person  to  have 
united  himself  with  the  man  Ciirist;  nay,  in  more  consistency  with  reason,  it 
seems  to  establish  the  perfect  simplicity  of  the  divine  nature.     But  there  are 
some  men  of  high  cliaracter,  who  can  hardly  persuade  themselves,  th;it  Noctiia 
believed  what  I  have  stated:  And  they  prefer  the  supposition,  that  Noetus  did 
not  differ  greatly  from  those  commonly  cal'  /d  Unitarians  :  that  is,  that  he  be- 
lieved it  was  not  the  Father  himself,  but  only  some  virtue  from  the  Father,  that 
entered  into  the  man  the  Son.     But  I  do  not  perceive  that  they  adduce  any  ar- 
guments, which  compel  us  to  believe  tliat  the  ancients  did  not  understand  his 
principles.    What  they  tell  us,  that  SabeUius  was  a  disciple  of  Noetus,  and  that 
therefore  the  system  of  the  latter  must  be  explained  as  coinciding  with  Sabel- 
lianism,  is  of  no  weight :  for, — not  to  urge,  that  iu  regard  to  the  real  opinions  of 
Sabellius  there  is  very  great  debate, — only  Augustine  and  Philaster  tell  us  that 
Sabellius  was  a  disciple  of  Noetus;  and  the  testimony  of  these  men,  who  lived 
long  after  the  times  of  Noetus,  and  frequently  made  mistakes,  is  not  worthy  of 
as  much  confidence,  as  that  of  those  Greeks  who  lived  earlier,  and  who  knew  no- 
thing of  Sabellius' being  a  disciple  of  Noetus. — Quite  recently,  an  ingenious  man, 
who  is  well  rend  in  Christian  antiquities,  Isaac  de  Beausobre,  (Histoire  de  Mani- 
ehee,  vol.  T.  p.  534.)  thinks  he  has  found  a  strong  argument  against  the  common 
explanation  of  Noetus'  system,  in  the  confutation  of  that  system  by  EfiphaniuSy 
(Hseres.  Ivii.  p.  481.)     For  Epiphanius  there  states,  that  Noetus  held  God  to  be 
(dTa3-ii)  impassible  and  Feausobre  thence  concludes,  with  much  confidence,  that 
Noetus  could  not,  without  consummate  folly,  have  at  the  same  time  believed  that 
God  suffered  in  the  person  of  Christ :  because,  to  suffer -Awd  to  be  inr.apable  of  suf- 
fering, are  directly  opposite  and  contradictory  ideas.*  But  this  objection  is  solved 
by  the  passage  before  cited  from  Theodoret,  in  which  he  says  the  Noetians  pro- 
nounced  one  and  the  same  Father  or  God,  to  be  impassible  in  one  sense,  namely, 
considered  solely  in  his  divine  nature;  but  in  another  sense  passible,  on  account 
of  his  union  with  tha  human  nature  of  the  Son.    It  is  strange  that  this  worthy 
man  should  not  reflect,  that  this  very  thing,  which  he  calls  consummate  folly, 
[p.  687.]  the  great  body  of  Christians  daily  profess;  namely,  that  God  who  from 
his  nature  cannot  suffer,  yet  did,  in  Christ,  suffer  those  penalties  which  men 
owed  to  God;  that  is  the  sufferings  of  Christ's  human  nature  are  predicable  of 
God  who  wns  joined  to  that  nature  by  an  intimate  and  indissoluble  union? — But 
what  need  is  there  of  protracted  arguments!     If  I  do  not  wholly  mistake,  it  is 
manifest  from  the  texts  of  Scripture  by  which  Noetus  supported  his  opinion, 
that  the  ancients  did  not  misapprehend  his  views.     In  the  first  place,  as  we  are 
told  by  Hippolytus  and  Epiphanius,  he  quoted  the  words  of  Paul,  (Rom.  ix.  5.) 

*  To  show  with  what  assurance  this  learned  man  expresses  himself,  I  will  subjoin 
Ills  own  words,  (p.  534.)  A  moins  que  Noet  et  ses  sectateurs  ne  fussent  des  foux  a 
loger  aux  pctites  maisons,  ils  n'ont  jamais  dit,  qu'uu  seul  et  meme  Dieu — est  impassi- 
ble et  a  souffert. 


ScfbelHus   and   the  SahclUans.  215 

Wlinsc  are llic.  fathers,  and  of  ichom  as  concerning  (hejlesh  Christ  came,  ivho  is-- 
Gnd  blessed  fur  ever,  'i'liese  words  drive  .'i  niun  into  dillicultics,  who  iiKiiiilnina 
that  only  a  cert-iin  divine  energy  wns  imparted  to  Christ;  but  they  Jippear  to  aid 
those,  who  maintain  that  Gud  the  Father,  personally,  was  in  Christ.  And  Noetus 
thus  argued  from  this  passage :  If  Christ  is  God  blessed  for  ever,  then  unduubt- 
cdly,  thai  God,  beside  whom  there  is  no  other,  and  who  is  wholly  indivisible, 
dwelt  in  Christ,  lie  also  applied  to  his  own  doctrine  those  words  of  Christ, 
(John  X.  30.)  /  and  the  Father  are  o?/e ;  and  those  addressed  to  Philip,  (John 
xiv.  9.  ][.)  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father.  Believest  thou  not  that  1  am 
in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  mel  Both  these  passages  stand  much  in  the  way 
of  those,  who  believe  that  only  some  energy,  emanating  from  the  Father,  animat- 
ed Christ  the  ambassador  of  God:  but  they  can  be  very  serviceable  to  those  who, 
with  Noetus,  suppose  that  the  person  of  God  the  Father  became  blended  with 
the  human  nature  of  Christ  so  as  to  make  but  one  person. 

(3)  The  appellation  Patripassians,  which  the  early  Christian  writers  applied  to 
both  the  Noetians  and  the  Sabellians,  is  ambiguous,  or  does  not  express  with 
sufficient  precision  the  error  which  those  sects  are  said  to  have  embraced.  For 
the  term  Father,  as  used  in  treating  of  God,  had  one  meaning  among  orthodox 
Christians,  and  another  among  the  Noetians.  The  former  understood  by  the 
term  Father,  the  first  person  of  the  divine  essence;  but  the  latter,  the  Noetians, 
who  supposed  that  to  admit  of  persons  in  God,  would  conflict  with  his  unity, 
intended  by  the  term  Father,  the  supreme  Deity  who  is  altogether  indivi.Mble, 
or  the  whole  divine  nature.  And,  therefore,  when  a  person  hears  them  called 
Patripassians,  he  is  linble,  by  taking  the  word  Father  {Pater)  in  its  common 
acceptation  among  Christians,  to  f;ili  into  the  belief,  that  they  supposed  it  was 
not  the  Son,  the  second  person  of  the  divine  nature,  but  the  first  person,  who 
bore  the  penalties  of  our  sins,  which  would  be  a  mistake  ;  yet  it  is  a  mistake 
into  which  many  fall,  being  deceived  by  the  ambiguity  of  the  term.  But  if  we 
affix  to  it  the  Noetian  sense  of  the  word  Father,  then  the  appellation  Patripas- 
sians will  be  a  suitable  one  for  the  sect.  The  appellation  was  devised  for  the 
sake  of  exciting  a  prejudice  against  the  Noetians;  and  such  is  generally  the 
fault  ill  all  such  appellations. 

§  XXXIII.  Sabellius  and  the  Sabellians.  After  the  mid-  [p.  688.] 
die  of  this  century,  Sabellius,  art  African  bishop,  or  presb^'ter,  of 
Ptolemais,  the  capitol  of  the  Pentapolitan  province  of  Libya  Cyre- 
naica,  attempted  to  reconcile,  in  a  manner  somewhat  different  from 
that  of  iVoc/ws,  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  Father,  Son,  and  holy  Spirit, 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  the  divine  nature.  As  the  error  of 
SahcUius  infected  several  of  the  Pentapolitan  bishops,  and  perhaps 
some  others,  Diomjsius,  the  l)ishop  of  Alexandria,  assailed  it  both 
orally  and  by  writing ;  but  he  was  not  able  to  eradicate  it  en- 
tirely. For,  from  unquestionable  testimony,  it  appears  that,  in 
the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  there  were  Sabellians  in  various 


216  Century  III.— Section  33. 

places.(')  The  doctrine  of  Sahellius  was  not  identical  witli  that 
of  Noctus ;  for  the  former  did  not  hold,  as  the  latter  appears  to 
have  done,  that  the  person  of  the  supreme  Deity,  which  he  con- 
sidered perfectly  simple  and  indivisible,  assumed  the  human  na- 
ture of  Christ  into  union  with  himself;  bat  that  only  an  energy 
or  virtue,  emitted  from  the  Father  of  all,  or,  if  you  choose,  a  ^jwr- 
ticle  of  the  person  or  nature  of  the  Father,  became  united  with  the 
man  Christ.  And  such  a  virtue  or  particle  of  the  Father,  he  also 
supposed,  constituted  the  holy  Spirit.  Hence,  when  the  ancients 
call  Sahellius  and  his  disciples  Patripassians,  the  appellation  must 
be  understood  differently  from  what  it  is  when  applied  to  Noetus 
and  his  followers.(") 

(1)  The  name  of  Sahellius  is  of  much  more  frequent  and  marked  notice,  in 
the  writings  of  the  ancients,  than  the  name  of  Noelus.  Nor  is  he  mentioned 
solely  by  those  who  treat  expressly  of  the  sects  in  the  early  ages,  viz.  Epipha- 
nius,  Augustine,  Theodoret,  Damascenus,  Philastcr,  and  the  others;  but  there  is 
frequent  mention  of  him  also,  by  those  who  contended  with  the  Arians  and  the 
other  corrupters  of  the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  God,  and  by  those  who  ex- 
pounded the  true  doctrine  concerning  God  and  Christ.  Nevertheless,  the  his- 
tory of  Sahellius  is  very  brief:  and  his  views  of  God  and  Christ  are  stated 
variously,  both  by  the  ancients  and  moderns. — The  place  where  he  lived  can  be 
fully  ascertained  from  Dionijsius,  Eusehius,  Athanasius,  and  many  others ;  but 
of  his  station,  his  conflicts,  and  his  death,  we  are  left  in  ignorance.  Gregory 
Abulpharagius  (in  his  Arabic  work,  Historia  Dynastiar.  p.  81.)  says  that  he  was 
a  preshijler ;  which,  perhaps,  was  the  fact :  but  what  is  added,  that  he  held  this 
office  at  Byzantium,  is  certainly  ftilse.  Zonaras,  (Interpretatio  Canonum,)  if  my 
memory  is  correct,  calls  him  a  bishop.  Which  of  these  authorities  is  to  be 
[p.  689.]  believed,  does  not  appear. — That  his  error  spread  widely,  and  not  only 
in  Pentapolis,  but  elsewhere,  and  particularly  in  Egypt ;  and  that  therefore,  Dio- 
nysius  of  Alexandria  elaborately  confuted  and  repressed  it,  is  fully  stated  by 
Athanasivs,  (in  his  work,  de  Sententia  Dionysii,  of  which  we  sjiall  speak  iiereafter,) 
and  more  concisely  by  Eusehius,  (Hist.  Eecles.  L.  vii.  c.  6.  p.  252).  And  it  is  no  im. 
probable  supposition,  that  Dionysius  held  a  council  at  Alexandria  against  Sabel- 
lius.  The  zeal  of  Dionysius  may  have  driven  the  Sabellians  from  Libya  and 
Egypt.  But  in  the  fourth  century,  according  to  Epiphanius,  (Haeres.  Ixii.  ^  1. 
p.  513.)  the  Sabellians  were  considerably  numerous  in  Mesopotamia,  and  at 
Rome.  And  in  the  fifth  century,  the  abbot  Eulhymius,  (as  stated  in  his  life, 
written  by  C^n7  of  Scytopolis,  and  published  by  Jo.  Bapl.  Cotelier,  in  his  Mo- 
num.  Ecclesire  Graecac,  torn,  iv,  p.  52.)  boldly  assailed  tou  la^iWiou  a-waipariy, 
{Sahellii  conjunclionem,)  i.  e.  the  Sabellian  doctrine  which  confounds  or  com- 
bines the  Father  and  tiie  Son. — There  is  extant  a  Historia  Sabelliana,  by  Chris- 
tian Wormius,  published  at  Leips.  ir»96,  8vo.     It  is  a  learned  work,  and  useful 


Opinions  of  SahcUius.  217 

in  researches  into  the  early  liistory  of  Christianity  ;  but  only  a  very  small  part 
of  it  relates  to  Sabcllius. 

(2)  Respecting  the  real  sentiments  of  Sabellius,  there  is  great  disagreement 
among  learned  men.  The  majority  say:  He  tanght  that  the  Father,  ISon,  and 
holy  Spirit,  are  only  three  nar  f.s  of  the  one  God,  originating  from  the  diversity 
of  his  acts  and  operations:  that  he  is  called  the  Father,  when  he  performs  the 
appropriate  works  of  a  Father,  such  as  procreating,  providing,  cherishing,  nour- 
ishing, and  protecting;  that  he  is  called  the  Son,  when  operating  in  the  Son, 
and  thereby  accomplishing  what  was  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  mankind; 
and  that  he  is  called  the  holy  Spirit,  when  he  is  considered  as  the  souive  of  all 
virtue  and  sanctilication.  This  exposition  of  his  views,  is  supported  by  numer- 
ous passages  from  the  ancients,  who  say  that  Sabellius  taught  that  the  Father 
himself  bore  the  penalties  of  the  sins  of  mankind;  whence  he  and  his  disciplea 
were  denominated  Palripassians.  .This  opinion,  Christian  Worm,  in  his  JiiUO' 
ria  Sabelliana,  supports  with  all  the  arguments  and  auihorities  he  can  com- 
mand. But  others,  relying  chiefly  on  the  authority  of  Epiphanius,  maintain 
that  the  ancients  misunderstood  Sabellius ;  that  he  did  not  hold  the  Father, 
Son,  and  holy  Spirit,  to  be  only  three  appellations  of  the  one  God,  as  acting  in 
different  ways :  but  that  he  believed  the  Father  to  be  truly  God,  in  whom  is  no 
division ;  and  the  Son  to  be  a  divine  virtue,  descending  from  the  Father  upon 
the  man  Christ,  so  that  he  might  be  able  to  work  miracles,  and  to  point  out 
correctly  the  way  for  men  to  be  saved;  and  that  he  believed  the  holy  Spirit  to  be 
another  ray  or  virtue  from  the  divine  nature,  moving  the  minds  of  men  and  ele- 
vating them  to  God.  And  on  this  ground,  tliey  conclude  that  there  was  a  great 
difference  between  the  doctrine  of  Sabellius  and  that  of  Noelus,  already  de- 
scribed ;  and  that  the  name  of  Palripassians  was  inapplicable  to  Sabellius,  because 
he  did  not  teach  that  the  Father,  or  God,  suffered  penalties,  but  only  some  [p.  690.] 
virtue,  proceeding  from  the  Father,  was  present  with  the  man  Christ,  and  aided 
hira  when  he  bore  our  penalties.  And  they  say  that  the  doctrine  of  Sabellius 
did  not  differ  greatly  from  that  which  is  maintained  by  the  Socinians. — Thua 
have  thought,  besides  others  of  less  fame,  Alexander  Moras,  (in  cap.  liii. 
Esaiae,  p.  7,  and  in  Observat.  in  N.  T.  pp.  81,  82.  ed.  Fabrici.)  Isaac  de  Bcauso- 
hre,  (Histoire  de  Manichee,  vol.  i.  p.  633,  &c.)  and  Simon  de  Vries,  (Dissert,  de 
Priscillianistis,  Traj.  1745,  4to.  p.  35,  36).  But  de  Vries,  if  I  mistake  not,  has 
merely  transcribed  from  Beausohre,  without  naming  him. — After  very  carefully 
comparing  and  pondering  the  statements  of  the  ancients,  I  have  concluded,  that 
those  err  who  make  the  Sabellian  doctrine  and  that  of  Noelus  to  be  the  same ; 
but  those  also  are  deceived,  to  some  extent,  vvho  deny  that  the  Sabellians  could, 
with  any  propriety,  be  called  Patripassians  by  the  ancients,  declaring  that  they 
were  very  much  like  the  Socinians,  and  that  if  the  statements  of  Epiphanius  are 
compared  with  those  of  the  earlier  writers,  the  whole  controversy  will  be  set- 
tled.— I  will  now  state,  as  carefully  and  perspicuously  as  I  can,  what  appears  to 
me  true  in  reg.ird  to  this  subject. 

1.  That  fear,  lest  God,  who  as  both  reason  and  the  Scriptures  tench  is  a  per- 
fectly -simple  unity,  should  be  rent  into  a  plurality  of  God.s,  which  influenced 
Noelus,  likewise  induced  Sabellius  to  deny  the  distinction  of  persons  in  the  di- 


218  Century  III.— Section  33. 

vine,  nature,  and  to  maintain  that  there  is  only  one  divine  person,  or  vn-o^TaTn. 
And  hence,  according  to  Epiphanius,  (Haercs.  Ixii.  ^1,  p.  504.)  whenever  the 
Sabellians  fell  in  with  unlearned  persons,  whom  they  hoped  easily  \a  i-onverf, 
they  proposed  to  them  this  one  question:  Tl  duv  eiirwuiv,  ha  Qiov  txoy-tv,  »  nrplit 
Qioiii  i   What  then  shall  we  say  ?     Have  we  one  God^  or  three  Gods  I 

II.  But  wliile  Sabellius  maintained  tiiat  there  was  but  one  divine  person, 
he  still  believed  the  distinction  of  Father,  Son,  and  holy  Spirit,  described  in  the 
Scriptures,  to  be  a  real  distinction,  and  not  a  mere  appellalice  or  w.minal  one. 
That  is,  he  believed  the  one  divine  person  whom  he  recognised,  to  liave  three 
di^^tinct/orm.s,  which  are  really  different,  and  wiiich  should  n(;t  be  confounded. 
This  remark  is  of  the  greatest  importance  to  a  correct  understanding  of  Sabel- 
lius' doctrine;  and  it  ought,  therefore,  to  be  accurately  substantiated.  The  first 
witness  I  adduce  is  Arnobius — not  the  elder  Arnobius,  who  lived  in  this  third 
century,  and  wrote  the  Libri  vii.  contra  Gentes,  but  Arnobius,  junior — a  writer 
of  the  tifth  century,  w-hose  work,  entitled  Conflictus  de  Deo  uno  et  trino  cum 
Serapione,  was  published  by  Francis  Feuardent,  subjoined  to  the  works  of  Ire- 
nteus.  Though  he  lived  long  after  Sabellius,  he  is  an  author  of  much  import- 
ance on  this  subject,  because  he  gives  us  statements  from  a  work  of  Sabellius 
himself,  which  he  had  before  him.  He  makes  Serapion  say,  (in  FeuardenCs 
edition  of  Irenseus,  Paris,  1675,  Fol.  p.  620)  :  Ego  tibi  Sabellium  lege,  (Serapion, 
therefore,  must  be  considered  as  holding  in  his  hand  some  book  of  iSabeUius^ 
[p.  691.]  from  which  he  read,)  anathema  dicentem  his,  qui  Patrem,  et  Filinm  et 
Spiritum  sanctum  esse  negarent,  ad  convincendam  Trinitatem.  Serapion  had  be- 
fore said:  In  Sabellii  me  insaniam  induxisti,  qui  unum  Deum,  Patrem  et  Filinm 
et  Spiritum  sanctum  confitetur.  And  when  Arnobius  had  replied:  Sabellium 
negare  Filium  et  Spiritum  sanctum  ;  that  is,  that  Sabellius  taught  that  the  Son 
and  the  holy  Spirit  are  nothing  different  from  the  Father,  Serapion  produced 
an  actual  w^ork  of  Sabellius,  and  showed  from  it  that  Sabellius  did  not  maintain 
what  Arnobius  asserted,  or  did  not  confound  the  Son  and  holy  Spirit  with  the 
Father,  but  clearly  discriminated  the  two  former  from  the  latter.  Arnobius,  on 
hearing  this,  yields  the  point,  or  admits  that  it  is  so  ;  but  still  he  maintains,  that 
there  is  a  wide  difference  between  the  doctrine  of  Sabellius  and  that  of  oiher 
Christians;  because  the  latter  believed  the  Son  to  be  begotten  by  tlie  Father, 
which  Sabellius  denied  :  Nos  autem  Patrem  dicimus  et  credimus,  qui  genui I  Fi- 
lium, et  est  Pater  unici  sui  Filii  ante  tempora  geniti.  And  this  is  a  just  repre- 
sentation :  for  although  Sabellius  made  a  distinction  between  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  yet  he  would  not  admit  that  the  Son  was  a  divine  person,  liegol/en  by 
the  Father.  From  this  passage,  therefore,  it  is  manifest:  (a)  That  Sabellius 
held  to  a  Trinity,  (b)  That  he  anathematised  those  who  denied  the  Father.  Son, 
and  holy  Spirit,  or  a  Trinity.  Whence  it  follows,  that  (f)  Sabellius  lield  to  a 
real,  and  not  a  mere  nominal  distinction  between  the  Father,  Son,  and  holy 
Spirit.  Had  he  supposed  the  terms  Father,  Son,  and  holy  Spirit,  were  three 
names  of  the  one  supreme  Deity,  there  would  have  been  no  ground  for  his  ana- 
thema. For  there  never  was,  and  never  can  be,  a  single  Christian  who  denies 
that  these  terms  occur  in  the  Bible,  and  are  there  applied  to  God.  It  is  un- 
questionable, both  from  the  course  of  the  argument,  and  from  the  nature  of  the 


opinions  of  SaheUlus.  219 

case,  lliat  Sibellius  condemned  tliose  who  coinmingl(.'d  andconfounded  tlic  Fo- 
tluT,  Son,  and  Imly  8i)irit.  But,  most  certainly,  theij  do  confonnd  the  Trniily, 
wlio  make  the  Father,  Son,  and  holy  Spirit,  to  ditVer  in  iiothin<i^  bnt  in  name. 
ThLMctori',  it  was  such  persons  that  Sabellius  anathematised. — A  second  vvilnesa 
come>i  forward,  viz,  Basil  the  Great;  who,  although  he  sometimes  seems  to  fa- 
vor iho-e  who  held  that  Sabellius  tanght  a  nominal  dislinctiou  in  the  Trinity, 
yet,  in  two  passages  shows,  not  obscurely,  that  Sabellius  held  to  some  real  dis- 
tineliou  in  God.     One  of  the  passages  i-,  (Epist.  cc.x.  Opp.  torn.  iii.  p.  317.  edit 

Bv-'Uedict.)  :  ^Avjnita-TaTOv  TU)V  irpoTioitoiv  dv-x ■i:\aTfxdvy  ou  tTt  o  ia/SiXX/of  rrafwrxVaTo, 
eiTioVy  Tov  duTov  Qiof  e>'o  rtf  Cv ox.it fAcvcfi  SjTa,  tt^oj  Taf  in-dcmTi  TrafaTiTTTiwai 
vcftjj  fAiTay.op<f>ivi/.ivoVy    vv/  (Atv   wf   TraTcia,     vZv   S'i   wj  vtoVy    vZv   S't   w;    irviZfJa   aytov 

J'^a\e}i7d-a'..  lllud  iiyposlasi  carens  personarum  commontum  ne  Sabellius  qui- 
dem  rc'j.'cit,  quippe  cam  dicat  eundem  Deum,  cum  subji'cto  unus  sit,  pro  occur- 
renlibus  subinde  occaaionibus  trani-formatum,  modo  ut  Patrem,  modo  ut  Filium, 
moilo  nt  Spiri  um  sanctum  locjui.  The  other  pas.^age  is  (Epist.  ccxxxv.  p.  364.)  : 
2aSi;XXtoff  TroWa^ov  (Tuy^icov  rtiv  ivvoiaVy  eni^tipli  S^tatfilv  to.  irpoiro-rray  -^nv  dDri^i 
vTr-jTrara    \iyoii    irfoi   t,)v    \<La7T0Ti    TTapiUTrUrova-av  X?^^'^^  /uira^nuar ii^ar-  [p.  C92.] 

^ai.  Sabellius,  tamotsi  confundit  nolionem  (Dei),  tamen  sape  conatur  personaa 
distinguere,  dum  hypostasin  eamdem  ait  pro  usu  subinde  occurrente  varias  per- 
sonas  induere.  Basil,  indeed,  speaks  less  clearly  than  I  could  wish,  on  this  very 
obscure  subject.  But  this  is  plain  enough,  that  the  Trinity  of  Sabellius  was 
not  merely  nominal  or  verbal.  For  while  he  maintained  that  there  was  but  one 
•person  {v7roC<rTX<ni)  in  God,  he  yet  held  that  there  are  three  (Tr/JoVwn-a)  formZy  or 
aspects  of  the  one  God,  and  that  he  assumes  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  forms, 
according  to  the  state  of  things.  But  divers/orm.s  of  one  and  the  same  being, 
however  they  may  be  considered,  involve  some  real  distinction,  and  cannot  be 
confounded  wilh  different  appellations  for  the  same  thing.  But  nothing  will 
better  elucidate  and  confii-m  my  po>i;ion,  than  the  comparison  by  which  the  Sa- 
bellians  were  accustomed  to  illustrate  their  doctrine  concerning  the  Father,  Son, 
and  holy  Spirit,  as  it  is  stated  by  Epiphanius,  (Hceres.  l\ii.  p.  513).  Having 
stated  the  Sabellian  doctrine  in  the  common  form:  Xivai  Iv  (aU  C^oTTa^rn  Tpui 
cvoLiaTiaiy  there  are  three  appellations  in  one  person;  he  proceeds  to  show  that 
this  language  must  not  be  construed  too  rigidly,  by  saying :  Q'j  iv  dvd-puzft 

c-uf^ay  xui  4^^/^^'  '^^^  TTvlvfA.a-  Kai  bivsLt  fj.iv  To  <ru)/uay  wj  Ifrruv  rdv  TraTtpa,  -^v^ny 
Si   (Lj   il"Hv   Toi   i/iox,    To    irnufJia    Si   wf   d»'-3"OwToy,    •  owTcj?    xai   To    'dyiov   TrVtu/ua   iv 

Tn  edTun.  Patrem,  Filium,  Spiritum  sanctum  sic  se  habere  in  Deo  quemad- 
moduin  in  homine  corpus,  nnimam  et  spiritum  ;  corporis  instar  Patrem,  aniraaj 
Filium,  Spiritum  denique  sanctum  in  Divinitate  instar  spiritus  se  habere.  Com- 
parisons, undoubtedly,  are  not  to  be  pressed  too  far;  but  this  one  would  lose 
every  shadow  of  likeness  and  similarity,  and  would  become  a  dissimilarity  rather 
than  a  similarity,  if  Sabellius  had  taught  only  a  Trinity  of  ?iames  or  words.  If 
the  difference  between  the  Father,  Son,  and  holy  Spirit,  is  the  same — I  do  not 
say  altogether,  bnt  only  in  part — as  that  between  the  hoJy,  the  rational  soul  or 
spirit,  and  tiie  sentient  soul  in  man  ;  then,  necessarily,  the  Father,  Son,  and  holy 
S|)irit,  must  differ  really  from  each  other.  Sabellius,  therefore,  believed  that^aa 
a  man  is  but  one  perso.iy  and  yet  in  his  one  person  three  things  may  be  discrimi* 


^20  Century  III.— Section,  33. 

nated,  not  m  thought  only,  but  as  having  a  real  existence,  namely,  tlie  body,  tho 
souU  and  the  spirit,  so,  also,  although  there  is  but  one  undi\ided  person  in  God, 
yet  in  that  person,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  holy  Spirit  can  be  discriminated, 
not  in  thought  only,  but  they  must  be  really  discriminated  and  kept  disliiict. — 
Other  testimonies  will  occur  as  we  proceed. 

III.  As  Sabellius  held  to  the  simple  unity  of  the  person  and  nature  of  God, 
and  yet  supposed  the  Father,  Son,  and  holy  Spirit,  to  dilfer  really  from  each 
other,  and  not  to  be  three  na?nes  of  the  one  God,  acting  in  different  ways ;  we 
are  obliged  to  believe,  that  he  considered  the  Father,  Son,  and  holy  Spirit,  as 
[p.  693.]  being  three  portions  of  the  divine  nature,  severed,  as  it  were,  from  God, 
and  differing  from  each  other,  yet  not  subsisting  as  three  persons,  but  all  de- 
pendent on  the  one  individual  divine  nature.  And  therefore  God,  when  about 
to  create  the  universe,  did  not  put  his  whole  person  in  action,  but  he  sent  out  a 
portion  of  his  nature,  by  which  he  accomplished  his  design.  And  this  portion  of 
the  Divinity  is  called  the  Father ;  becaus-e,  by  its  agency,  God  has  become  the 
parent  ofall  things,  or  procreates,  sustains,  cherishes,  and  governs  all.  This  Fa- 
ther produced  Christ  in  the  womb  of  the  virgin  Mary,  and  for  that  reason  is  em- 
phatically Chrisfs  Father ;  and  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God,  because  he 
holds  the  relation  of  a  Son,  in  regard  to  this  divine  energy.  Again,  when  the 
same  God  would  «-eclaim  to  himself  the  human  race  by  Christ,  he  sent  forth 
another  portion  of  himself,  whicii,  being  united  to  Christ,  is  called  tlie  Son;  be- 
cause he  resides  in  the  Son  of  God,  and  by  that  Son  teaches  and  works,  and,  in 
a  certain  sense,  makes  one  person  with  the  Son.  Lastly,  God  sent  out  a  third 
particle  of  his  nature,  periectly  separate  from  the  two  former,  by  which  he  ani- 
mates the  universe,  Jind  enlightens,  excites,  and  regenerates  the  minds  of  men. 
This  portion  of  God  is  called  the  holy  Spirit ;  because,  like  a  wind,  he  excites 
and  produces  holy  movements  in  men.  'J'he  three  forms,  or  three  irfoToiira  of 
God,  therefore,  y.':cording  to  Sabellius,  were  neither  three  qualities  of  the  divine 
nature,  {existencf-,  toisc?ow2>  and  life;  as  Abulpkaraius  supposed,  Historia  Dynast. 
p.  81.)  nor  three  modes  of  acting,  nor  three  appellations  of  the  one  God ;  but 
they  were  parts  or  portions,  rent,  indeed,  in  a  sence  from  God,  and  yet  in  another 
sense  connected  with  him. — This  exposition  is  compatible  with  that  celebrated 
comparison  taken  from  the  sun,  which  Epiphanius  mentions,  and  which  had  led 
Fome  worthy  men  to  make  the  Sabellians  agree  with  the  Socinians.  Epiphanius 
(Uteres.  Ixii.  p.  513.)  says,  that  the  Sabellians  were  accustomed  to  explain 
their  doctrine  by  a  comparison  with  the  sun,  thus :  In  the  sun  there  is  but  07ie 
suistance,  (f^ta  CirirTaa-n,)  but  there  are  three  powers,  (tvffytiai,)  namely,  (t« 
9cjTi7T(Kcv,  TO  d-a\Tdv,  TO  TTf^KptoHas  ^x^if^a,)  the  illiiminatinfr  power,  the  warm- 
ing poiver,  and  the  ciicular  form.  Tiie  warming  power  answers  to  the  holy 
Spirit;  the  illuminating  power,  to  the  Son  ;  and  the  form  or  figure,  (to  ItJ'oc,) 
to  the  Father.  This  representation  seems  in  itself  to  favor  the  opinions  of  those 
who  make  Sabellius  discard  all  real  distinctions  in  the  divine  nature.  But  Epi- 
phanius explains  the  comparison  in  a  manner  that  makes  it  apparent,  that  Sa- 
bellius did  not  intend,  by  this  new  comparison,  to  subvert  his  former  compari- 
son, taken  from  the  soul,  body,  and  spirit  in  a  man.  For  he  adds,  that  the  Son 
was  sent  out  like  p.  ray  from  the  Father,  to  perform  what  was  requisite  for  the 


Opinions  of  SaheUius.  221 

flalvation  of  mankind,  and,  h:iving  accomplished  the  business,  returned  again  to 
heaven;  and  that  the  holy  Spirit  also,  in  like  manner,  should  be  viewed  as  some- 
tiiing  sent  into  the  world.  Now,  whatever  is  sent  forth  from  God,  and  after- 
wards  returns  to  God,  must  undoubtedly  be  something  actually  separate  in  some 
way  from  the  divine  nature:  because,  it  could  not  possibly  return  hack  [p.  694.] 
to  God,  unless  it  had  departed  and  been  separated  from  God. — Let  no  one  trou- 
ble himself  with  the  dilliculties  whicli  this  dogma  involves;  for  the  question  is, 
not  how  wisely  Sabellius  reasoned,  but  what  distinction  he  made  between  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  holy  Spirit. 

IV.  Therefore,  although  the  ancients  sometimes  speak  as  if  they  would  re- 
present Sabellius  to  believe  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  holy  Spirit,  differ  from 
each  other  only  as  three  modes  of  acting,  or  three  relations  of  the  same  man, 
yet  their  language  is  not  to  be  pressed  too  much,  but  should  be  construed  by 
what  we  have  above  stated.  And  they  themselves,  often  correct  what  they  have 
in  certain  passages  stated  less  fitly  and  distinctly ;  and  explain  themselves  in 
other  passages,  in  accordance  with  our  statements.  One  example  we  have  al- 
ready  seen  in  Epiphanius ;  who  seems  to  teach  that  the  Trinity  of  Sabellius 
was  only  nominal,  and  yet  he  is  with  us.  Another  example  is  afforded  by  Basil 
the  Great,  who  speaks  (Epist.  ccxiv.  p.  322.)  as  if  Sabellius  denied  any  real  dis- 
tinction ill  the  divine  nature  ;  and  yet,  in  the  two  passages  above  cited,  he  ad- 
mits that,  while  Sabellius  rejected  a  personal  distinction,  he  was  not  averse  from 
admitting  one  that  was  real  and  true;  and  while  denying  that  what  was  divine 
in  Christ  differed  from  God,  in  the  same  way  that  a  son  differs  from  a  father, 
yet  conceded  that  it  might  be  viewed  as  a  sort  of  separate  (ir/»oVaffov)  'person.  I 
will  now  add  a  third  example,  very  striking,  and  well  suited  to  our  purpose, 
taken  from  Theodoret.  In  his  Heretical  Fables,  (L.  ii,  c.  9,  0pp.  torn.  iv.  p.  223.) 
he  explains  the  dogma  of  Sabellius  in  the  usual  way ;  viz.  that  he  held  to  one 
person  under  three  names^  and  called  that  person  sometimes  the  Father,  some- 
times the  Son,  and  sometimes  the  holy  Spirit.  But  in  his  Eccles.  History, 
(L.  i.  c.  4.)  he  gives  us  an  Epistle  o^  Alexander,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  to  Alex- 
ander, the  bishop  of  Constantinople  ;  from  which  it  appears,  that  SabeHiu.3 
thought  very  differently.  For  he  tells  us  (0pp.  tom.  iii.  p.  533.)  that  Alexander 
wrote  thus:  Tria-Hvouiv  it;  Iva  Kvfiicv,  lua-ouv  Xfttrrdr,  rdv  vidv  tou  Qiou  fxovoytiHy 
ytwu^cvTa'  ix.  rou  ovros  Il:trfoC)  lu  kato.  Taf  rwj/  a-ujudruv  o/ucioTitrai,  rati 
T  0  fx  a  I  <;    ii    Totf    Ik    J'latpeiTicjv    dirOffoiaig,     wa-nif)  2a/S»XX<o,    Kai    BaXtx- 

Tivcc  cToxst,  aXX'  dppMraj.  Credimus  in  unum  Dominum  Jesum  Christum,  Filium 
Dei  unigcnitum,  ex  eo,  qui  Pater  est  genitum,  non  corporum  ritu,  per  incisiones^ 
divisionumque^i^a:?one.9,  ut  Sabcllio  et  Valentino  visum  est,  sed  ineffabili  modo. 
We  may  remark,  that  this  is  the  statement  of  a  man,  than  whom  no  one  could 
better  know  the  doctrine  of  Sabellius;  for  he  lived  in  the  country  and  city  in 
which  that  doctrine  originated,  was  propagated,  and  condemned  ;  and  he  un- 
doubtedly had  in  his  possession  the  writings  of  Dionyslus,  his  predecessor  in  the 
see  of  Alexandria,  against  Sabellius.  This  man,  therefore,  who  is  the  very  best 
authority  in  the  case  before  us,  first,  states  the  doctrine  of  orthodox  Christians 
respecting  the  generation  of  the  Son  of  God ;  secondly,  distinguishes  [p.  695.] 
from  it  the  error  of  Valentinus  and  Sabellius,  in  regard  to  the  generation  of  the 


222  Century  Ill—Section  33. 

Son  ;  and  (liirdli/,  tells  us,  t!i:it  Sabellius  and  Valentinus  held,  that  the  Son  was 
produced  from  the  Father,  in  the  manner  of  material  bodies,  either  (Ta7j  touoIs) 
by  seclvms,  or  {U  J'laipia-iav  drci'^aiom)  by  emanaiion  or  effluxes  of  parts.  The 
ialter  of  these  two  hypotheses,  undoubtedly  was  that  of  Valentinus  ;  whose  well 
known  npo^iXH  {emissi'm),  is  here  not  unsuitably  called  an  diroiooix  {r-Jffiux).  The 
first  hypolhesia,  therefore,  beyond  all  controversy,  was  that  of  Sabellius.  Con- 
soquenily,  first,  Sabelliiis  admitted  a  species  of  generation  of  the  Son  from  the 
Father;  not,  indeed,  n 'personal  one,  yet  one  of  some  sort.  But,  secondly,  he  de- 
scribed this  generation  very  grossly,  and  in  the  miinner  of  material  bodies. 
Thirdly,  he  made  the  Son  proceed  tVom  God,  by  {TifA>iv)  a  kind  of  seciiun.  Alex- 
ander, indeed,  speaks  of  (joy-ai^)  sections,  in  tiie  plural ;  but  he  appears  to  use 
tlie  plural  for  the  singular,  as  is  common.  For  he  also  speaks  of  {dno'f^oUis) 
fluxions,  in  the  plural ;  and  yet  it  is  certain  that  Valentinus  held  to  but  one 
dir:f(>oiav  OF  npo^oXh  of  the  Son  from  the  Father.  Hence,  fourthly,  it  is  mani- 
fest, that  S.ibellius  considered  that  divine  thing,  which  dwelt  in  the  man  Christ, 
as  being  a  part  or  portion  of  God  ;  so  that  the  Son  differed  from  the  Father,  as 
apart  ditTei's  from  the  whole:  from  whom  he  was  severed  by  a  section.  1  recol- 
lect, that  George  Bull,  (in  his  Defensio  Fidei  Niea^nae,  Sect.  ii.  c.  1,  0pp.  p.  33.) 
and  perhaps  others,  explain  this  passage  of  Alexander  differently,  and  maintain 
that  Alexander  does  not  here  state  the  opinion  of  Sabellius,  but  only  shows  us 
hovv  Sabellius  explained  the  common  opinion  of  Christians,  respecting  the  gene- 
ration of  the  Son  of  God;  viz.  this  heretic  supposed,  that  a  division  of  the  es- 
sence of  the  Father  would  necessarily  follow  from  the  doctrine  of  the  catholics. 
But  a  careful  attention  to  the  passage,  will  show  that  the  learned  man  was  de- 
ceived;  for  the  words  will  not  bear  his  interpretation.  The  Sabellian  and  Va- 
lentinian  opinions,  respecting  the  nature  of  the  divine  generation,  stand  coupled 
together;  but  the  latter  is  certainly  not  the  catholic  opinion,  as  explained  by 
Valentinian,  but  the  opinion  of  Valentin ian  himself;  and,  therefore,  the  Sabel- 
lian opinion  coupled  with  it,  is  the  opinion  of  Sabellius  himself,  and  not  that  of 
the  catholics,  to  whom  he  was  opposed.  Bull  was  led  to  his  mistake  by  the 
full  belief,  that  the  common  statement  of  Sabellius'  doctrine  is  correct.  He 
says:  Norunt  omnes,  Sabellium  doculsse,  Deum  esse  fA.  o  v oTrp  6  o-  air  ov,  (a  great 
mistake  !  For  we  see  clearly  from  Basil,  that  he  acknowledged  three  Trpia-uita  in 
God,  but  denied  three  viroTrr d<rns.)  et  nullam  realem  personarum  distinctionem  in 
divina  essentia,  nedum  divisionem  agnovisse.  This  is  in  the  main  false  !  Sabel- 
lius denied  any  personal  distinction  in  God,  but  not  a  real  and  true  division. — 
But  Worm  (in  his  Historia  Sabell.  c.  1.  p.  20.)  blunders  still  worse.  To  elude 
the  force  of  this  passage,  he  would  persuade  us  that  the  words  to««  and  droffoia 
both  refer  to  Valentinian,  and  neither  of  them  to  Sabellius.  Strange  that  a 
[p.  696.]  learned  man  should  say  this !  For  who  does  not  see  that  these  two  words 
express  two  diirerent  opinions'?  And  who,  that  has  dipped  into  church  history, 
can  be  so  ignorant  of  it,  as  not  to  know  that  a  rSjun,  or  section,  can  by  no  means 
be  attributed  to  Valentinus  ?  But  what  need  of  discussion  ? — We  have  another 
equally  noticeable  passage  of  an  Egyptian  of  Alexandria,  who  must  have  been 
fully  acquainted  with  the  doctrine  of  Sabellius;  namely,  Arius  the  heresiarch, the 
adversary  of  Alexander,  who  agrees  with  his  enemy  Alexander,  and  explains  the 


Opinions  of  Scthellius.  223 

doctrine  of  S;ibclliiis  in  the  same  innnner.  Mis  Epistle  to  Alexander,  his  bishop, 
is  extant  in  Kpiphanius,  (Hicres.  ixix.  torn.  i.  p.  732).  Arius  there  first  conti 
deinns  the  opinion  of  Va/t'n/m/^s  re^pee'.ing  the  divine  generation,  and  says: 
7rfijio\nv  To  ytvvnfxa  roy  Flarficf  i^oyfAuT iviv:  and  then  he  rejects  the  opinion  of 
Sabellius,  in  the  ibllo\vin<i:  terms:  ovJ"  <!>;  Ja/SsXX/oj  o  r«v  /uovaS'a  J'laifiot 
CioraTcfu.  Iirtv.  Nec  ego  doceo,  ut  Sabellius,  qui  uritatem  divisil  (here  we  liavo 
the  T'jf^ta;  v^  Alexander,)  et  Filium-Patrem  appellavit.  No  language  could  better 
agree  with  our  explanation.  Sabellius  divided,  cleaved  the  unity  of  the  divine 
nature;  and  he  c;illed  that  divine  thing  which  dwelt  in  Christ,  jytojruTooa,  both 
Father  and  !<on :  and  correctly,  for  a  part  of  the  Father  was  in  Christ,  and  this 
part  was  at  the  same  time  the  Son,  being  united  with  him  ;  and  therefore  ho 
might  be  called  Ciiirarn^. 

V.  As  Sabellius  supposed  the  Son  to  be  a  fart  of  God,  or  a  portion  of  tho 
divine  nature,  severed  from  it  by  section,  the  ancients  were  not  altogether  wrong 
in  denominating  him  and  his  friends  Patripassians ;  provided  we  understand  by 
the  Father  the  one  supreme  God,  who,  as  Sabellius  supposed,  was  not  divisible 
into  persons.  For,  whoever  supposes  that  a  certain  part  or  portion  of  the  eter- 
nal Father,  taken  in  a  certain  sense  out  of  him,  and  yet  depending  on  him,  and 
hereafter  to  return  into  him, — w;is  in  Christ  when  he  suHered  pains  and  died, 
and  that  it  participated  in  the  sufferings  endured  by  the  man  Christ ; — that  man 
may  not  improperly  be  said  to  believe, — not  that  a  d.W\wQ,  person,  but  God  tho 
Father  himself;  not,  indeed,  in  his  whole  nature,  but  so  far  forth  as  he  was  join- 
ed  with  Christ,  actually  suffered  the  penalties  incurred  by  mankind.  If  any  hu- 
man being,  Peter,  for  instance,  could  transfer  a  half  or  third  part  of  his  soul  into 
another  man,  Paul,  for  example,  and  that  Paul  should  be  put  to  torture  by  some 
tyrant,  might  not  that  Peter  be  fitly  said  to  have  suffered  torture  in  Paul  ? — I 
shall  not  cite  here  the  testimonies  of  Augustine,  Eusebius,  and  many  others, 
who  have  told  us  either  that  Sabellius  and  his  associates  were  called  Patripas- 
sians, or  that  they  truly  merited  that  appellation  ;  for  such  testimonies  in  great 
abundance  have  been  already  collected  by  Worm,  Tillemont,  and  others  :  but  I 
will  add  to  those  adduced,  one  witness  of  great  value,  and  deserving  the  first 
rank,  who  has  been  omitted  by  all  who  have  treated  of  the  subject.  He  is  Di- 
omjsius  Alexandrinus,  the  first  antagonist  of  Sabellius.  The  Arians  of  the  fourth 
century,  in  their  writings  against  Sabellius,  afhrm  that  this  great  and  [p.  697.] 
excellent  man  professed  exactly  their  sentiments  concerning  Christ.  And  to  re- 
fute their  assertion,  Athanasius  wrote  a  book,  entitled  de  Sententia  Dianysii 
Alex,  de  Christo,  which  has  come  down  to  us,  and  is  in  the  0pp.  Athiinasii, 
(torn.  i.  P.  i.  p.  242,  &c.,  edit.  Benedict).  In  this  book  Athanasius  shows,  from 
the  v\-ritings  of  Dionysius,  that  he  demonstrated,  against  Sabellius,  that  the  Fa- 
ther did  not  suffer;  and,  at  the  same  time,  h<^.  shows  that  the  Sabellians  really 
transferred  to  the  Father  tliose  sufferings  which  Christ  endured.  In  ^  5.  p.  246, 
he  says:    TaXuhpirtpcv    imivoi   rdv  viov   ypvivvTOy  kui   to.  dv^pcjrtVA   durou   tw   Uarft) 

d¥iTld-i7CtV    S'li^ai    OTl    OUp^'    0    TTUThp,  dW  (t  ClOS  £3"riJ'  0  ytvO/AiViS  CttSO  i\U(Zv  uv3"/)(»;Taf. 

Quum  audacius  illi  (the  followers  of  Sabellius  in  Pent:ipolis,)  Filium  negarcnt, 
(i.  e.  denied  that  the  Son  was  a  distinct  person  from  the  Father,)  ct  humana 
gus  (his  sufferings  and  death)  Palri  adscriberent ;  ostendit  ipse  (Dionysius)  non 


224  Century  Ill.—Section  33. 

Patreni,  sed  Filinm  pro  nobis  liominom  esse  factum.  And  in  \  26.  p.  261,  he 
cites  from  an  Epistle  of  Dionysius  to  Eupln-jinor  and  Atnmonius,  in  confutation 
of  the  error  of  iSabellius  :  T^o/SaXXt/  rH  llvd'paiTriva-^c  iipn/uiva  Tnfi  tow  o-oitjj'^cj,  oli, 
£o"Ti    TO    TTf/vdv,    rd   KCTTiclv    -    -    6t X    "yap   ruvrx   TsLTrtiva  hi-yncti^   TarcUTai   J'iix.M/TUi 

f^))  0  Tzaritp  ytvif^ivos  atd-pcerc^.  Pnutormittit  ea,  qua3  humano  more  de  illo  dictJk 
habentur.  cujusmodi  sunt  csurire,  laboraro  :  quanto  enim  hicc  dictu  sunt  humi- 
liora,  tanto  liquidius  denionstratur  Patrcm  non  esse  factum  hornineu).  This  re- 
nowned opponent  of  Sabellius,  in  the  ardor  of  debate  and  zeal  for  victory,  suf- 
fered liimseif  to  be  carried  so  far,  that,  not  without  apparent  justice,  he  was  ac- 
cused of  error  before  Diomjsius,  bishop  of  Rome.  For  while  Sabellius  seemed 
to  change  the  Son  into  the  Father,  or  to  confound  him  with  the  Father,  Diony- 
sins  seemed  to  degrade  the  Son.  or  to  rob  iiim  of  his  majesty.  And  hence  it 
became  necessary  for  liim  to  explain  his  views  more  clearly,  and  he  wrote  two 
books  in  self  vindication,  namely,  his  Elenchus  and  his  Apologia.  On  this  sub- 
ject Athanasius  dwells  much  ;  and  he  clearly  shows,  by  more  than  a  sufficiency 
of  citations  from  Dionysius,  that  he  did  not  hold  the  error  of  the  Arians  respect- 
ing Christ.  (See  5  13.  p.  252,  &c.)  But  after  all  the  diligence  of  Athanasius 
in  defending  Dionysius,  and  in  wiping  away  every  stain  upon  the  character  of 
a  man,  held  in  the  highest  veneration  at  Alexandria,  it  will  be  manifest,  to  a 
person  carefully  considering  all  that  Athanasius  has  said  in  his  defence,  that 
there  was  something  erroneous  in  Dionysius,  and  that  his  opinion  of  Christ,  dif- 
fered from  the  Nicene  and  the  modern  doctrine.  The  more  effectually  to  con- 
fute Sabellius,  who  maintained  that  God  himself,  or  the  Fatlier  was  born,  suf- 
fered and  died  in  Christ,  Dionysius  denied,  (as  Atlianasius  clearly  shows,  \  5. 
p.  246,)  that  i\\e  passions  of  Christ  (humana  Christi)  feriained  to  the  God  resi- 
dent in  Christ;  and  he  referred  them  exclusively  to  the  Son.  He  therefore 
went  to  the  opposite  extreme.  That  is,  Dionysius  distinguished  in  Christ  the 
Word,  a  divine  person  distinct  from  the  Father,  and  also  the  Son  ;  or  rather, 
[p.  698.]  he  supposed  two  Sons,  a  human  and  divine.  The  Woj-d,  or  the  divine 
Son,  he  exempted  from  all  the  passioiis  (di'd-pwnivoiSi  humanis)  of  Christ,  or  from 
all  that  Christ,  as  a  man,  did  and  suffered  ;  and  maintained,  that  all  these 
passio7is,  {dvdpcoTrtva) — his  being  horn,  suffering,  dying,  pertained  solely  to  that 
Son  of  man  who  was  born  of  Mary.  Here  he  erred,  and  entered  the  direct  road 
leading  to  the  doctrine  ascribed  to  Nestorius.  For,  if  the  Son  of  God,  or  the 
Word,  which  was  united  to  the  man  Christ,  had  no  part  in  the  actions  and  suf- 
feiings  of  the  Son  of  man,  it  is  manifest,  that  there  must  liave  been  both  itoo 
natures  and  two  persons  in  Christ,  and  that  the  Son  of  God,  or  the  Word,  only 
strengthened,  enlightened,  and  aided  the  Son  of  man.  And,  therefore,  not  with- 
out reason,  was  Dionysius  accused  at  Rome,  although  not  wiih  due  accuracy 
and  distinctness. — Yet,  these  mistakes  of  the  pious  and  truth-loving  Dionysius, 
serve  admirably  to  elucidate  the  tenets  of  Sabellius:  namely,  that  he  supposed 
a  portion  of  the  divine  nature  was  so  united  with  the  man  Christ  at  his  birth,  as 
to  be  born  with  him,  suffer  nud  die  w-ith  him,  and  participate  in  all  the  actions  and 
sufferings  of  the  man  Christ,  or  the  Son ;  and  that  this  portion  of  the  Deity,  on 
account  of  its  intimate  union  with  the  Son,  is  in  Scripture  called  the  Son, 
although,  properly  speaking,  only  the  mail  Christ  should  be  called  the  Son. 


Error  of  Berijllus.  225 

Either  such  were  the  views  of  SahclUus,  or  the  entire  argument  of  Dionijsius 
against  him  is  futile,  irrelevant,  and  idle.  That  which  we,  following  the  JScrip- 
lures,  denominate  a  person  eternally  begotten  by  the  Father,  Sabellius  took  to 
be  a  part  of  the  Deity  separated  from  him  within  a  limited  time.  If  he  had  only 
supposed  the  divine  nature  in  Christ  to  be  a  person,  he  would  have  coincided 
with  us,  more  exactly  than  Dionysius  did. — But  perhaps  it  will  not  be  unac- 
ceptable, but  rather  agreeable  to  many,  if  I  should  discriminate  with  more  ex- 
actness the  Sabellian,  the  Dionysian,  and  our  own  opinions  of  Christ.  We  all 
hold  to  two  natures  in  Christ,  a  divine  and  a  human.  And  loe  hold  that  these  two 
natures  constituted  one  person,  and  we  exclude  the  personality  of  the  human  na- 
ture, or  place  the  personality  in  the  divine  nature.  Sabellius,  on  tlie  contrary, 
while  he  agreed  with  us  in  declaring  that  the  two  natures  constituted  but  one 
person,  excluded  the  personality  of  the  divine  nature,  or  made  the  personality  to 
exist  only  in  and  by  the  human  nature.  And  to  confute  him,  Dionysius  sepa- 
rated, not  only  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  but  also  the  persons,  and  held  that  the 
actions  and  passions  of  the  human  nature,  were  not  predicable  of  the  divine 
nature.  Thus,  in  his  zeal  to  confute  one  error,  he  fell  into  another  equally 
great. 

VI.  But  Sabellius  and  his  disciples  cannot  be  called  Patripassians,  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  the  Noeiians  were ;  if  the  opinions  of  the  latter  are  cor- 
rectly stated  by  the  ancients.  For  Noetus  thought  the  ivhole  person  of  the  Fa- 
ther, or  the  entire  divine  nature,  associated  itself  with  Christ:  but  Sabellius  sup- 
posed,  that  only  a  portion  of  the  divine  nature  descended  into  the  man  Christ. 
Hence,  Epiplianius  made  no  mistake  when  he  said,  in  his  Anacepha-  [p.  699,] 
la^osis,  (0pp.  tom.  ii.  p.  146.)  :  Sabellianos  consentire  in  plerisque  cum  Noetia- 
nis,  hoc  uno  excepto,  quod  non  ut  Noetiani  Patrem  passum  esse  doceant. 
This  is  perfectly  correct,  if  it  be  explained  as  I  have  stated,  that  the  Sabel- 
lians  did  not  ascribe  the  sufferings  of  Christ  to  the  Father,  in  the  same 
sense  in  which  the  Noetians  did.  And  therefore,  there  was  no  ground  for 
Augustine,  (de  Hseresibus,)  and  many  others  since  him,  to  cast  blame  upou 
Epiphanius. 

§  XXXIY.  Beryllus  of  Bostra,  in  Arabia.  About  tlie  same 
time  a  similar  error,  tliongh  a  little  worse,  was  broached,  by 
BenjUus,  the  bishop  of  Bostra,  in  Arabia,  a  man  otherwise  de- 
vout, grave,  and  erudite,  who  had  long  governed  his  congregation 
praiseworthily,  and  also  acquired  reputation  by  his  writings.  He 
likewise  subverted  the  distinction  of  persons  in  God,  and  denied 
that  Christ  existed  before  Mary.  He  supposed  that  a  soul,  the  off- 
spring of  God  himself,  and  therefore,  doubtless,  superior  to  all 
human  souls,  was  divinely  implanted  in  Christ  at  his  birth.  This 
opinion  of  Beryllus  was  long  opposed  by  many  persons,  but  in 
vain.  At  length,  Origen^  being  invited  from  Egypt  for  this  pur- 
pose, confronted  him  in  a  council  held  at  Bostra,  with  such  force 

VOL.  II.  16 


226  Century  Ill.—Sectlon  34. 

of  argument,  that  BeiijUus  gave  up  Lis  opinion,  and  was  recon- 
ciled to  tlie  cliurch.C) 

(1)  Nearly  all  that  is  now  known  of  Berylhis  and  his  doctrine,  is  derived 
from  Euscbhis,  (Hist.  Eccl.  L.  vi.  e.  20.  p.  222;  and  c.  33.  p.  231.)  and  from 
Jerome,  (Catal.  Scriptor.  Ecel.  c.  60.  edit.  Fabricii).  For  all  that  others  tell 
us,  e.\cept  a  single  passage  in  Soci'ates,  scarcely  deserves  notice.  Eusebius  alone 
states  distinctly  the  errors  of  the  man  :  and  yet  the  learned  have  found  some 
obscurity  in  his  language,  and  therefore  have  understood  him  ditfercnlly.     His 

words  are  tiiese  :  Toa^cjI'  ^^iynv  /uii  Trfo-J^tTrlvai  Xpio-Tdv  kat"^  icTtar  ovo-iai  TTtpi- 
ypotpiiv  Trpd  TJif  in  dvd-puivovs  iriS'ii/LAiaSy  y.ii  Si  /niV  QiOTHTU.  IS'iav  ?p^2/i',  t/AX'  iiA.To- 
\iTi-jofAtv»v  dvTtf,  fxovHv  TiiY  TT-jLTpiniiv .  I  wlll  suLjoin  the  Latin  translation  of 
Henry  de  Valois,  although  it  is  not  literal  throughout,  and  is  deemed  faulty  by 
some  learned  men.  It  U  this:  Ausus  estassererc  Christum  antequam  inter  ho- 
mines versaretur  (more  correctly:  ante  suum  ad  homines  adventum,  id  est,  ante- 
quam  nasceretur.  For  a  false  inference  may  be  drawn  from  the  translation  oi 
de  Valuis,)  non  substitis^e  in  propria3  personse  differentia,  (the  learned  transla- 
tor here  depaits  from  the  words,  but  follows  the  sense;  for  he  supposed  Iva-i^i  to 
be  here  equivalent  to  'Jn-o(rr:ta-ii.  The  literal  rendering  would  be:  secundum 
propriam  essentia)  circumscriptinnem,)  nee  propriam,  sed  paternam  duntaxat  di- 
[p.  700.]  vinitatem  in  ae  rendentem  habere.  Two  propositions  are  here  in- 
cluded :  the  first,  relating  to  Christ  previous  to  iiis  birth,  and  the  second,  con- 
cerning him  when  clothed  in  a  human  body.  In  the  first  place,  Beryllus  denied 
that  Christ,  previously  to  his  advent,  so  existed,  that  liis  essence  or  ovs-ia  was 
circumscribed,  (or  separated  from  that  of  all  other  beings).  Although  most 
writers  concerning  Beryllus  follow  the  translation  of  de  Ta/ozs,  yet  learned  men 
complain  that  he  renders  the  words  of  Eusebius  very  b:idly.  For  ova-ia  among 
the  Greeks  is  never  synonymous  with  Ctro^Ti^ic,  and  ■r:ipiyi)x(pif  never  signifiea 
difference,  but  circumscription.  So  John  le  Clerc,  (Ars  Critica,  Vol  i.  P.  ii.  sec.  i. 
c.  14.  p.  293,  &c.)  and  the  Nouvcau  Diction.  Historique  et  Critique,  (tom.  i.  Art 
Beryllus,  p.  268).  The  criticisms  are  correct:  and  yet  I  do  not  think  de  Valois 
guilty  of  any  great  fault.  Eusebius  aimed  to  express  the  very  same  thing,  which 
de  Valois  has  expressed  in  other  words.  Beryllus  did  not  deny,  that  Christ  ex- 
isted in  some  manner,  previous  to  his  coming  among  men ;  but  he  did  not  ad- 
mit that  his  essence  (lua-i-j.)  was  circumscribed.  Now  things  are  said  to  be  cir- 
cumscribed, ov  to  have  {Tiptyp:tp}iy)  circumscription,  when  they  are  separated  and 
secluded  from  other  things  by  determinate  limits  or  bounds.  Therefore,  Beryl- 
lus denied  that  Christ,  before  he  was  born  of  Mary,  had  a  separate  existence,  or 
that  he  was  distinct  from  the  essence  of  the  Father.  To  express  this  in  our 
phraseology,  would  be  to  say:  Christ  had  no  personality  before  he  was  born.  He, 
indeed,  existed  then,  yet  not  as  a  person,  but  only  in  the  essence  of  the  Father, 
He  existed,  but  undefined  ov  without  boundaries,  if  I  may  so  express  it ;  that  is, 
he  existed  in  combination,  as  it  were,  with  the  essence  of  the  Father  of  all 
things.  To  use  a  homely  illustration:  thus  the  zoine,  now  included  in  a  glass, 
existed,  indeed,  previously  in  the  cask  from  which  it  was  drawn,  but  it  had  not 
then  its  own  inpiyp^p^v  circumscription.  In  other  words,  Beryllus  excluded  from 


Error  of  BenjUus.  227 

fhe  divine  n:itiirc  all  divi.-ions,  :ind  ndinitted  no  distinction  of  persons  in  God. 
Jerome  expresses  his  conception,  not  erroneously,  indeed,  yet  not  with  sullieicnt 
perspicuity,  (C;i!nl.  Scriptor.  Eccl.  c.  GO.  p.  138.):  ChrisLmn  ante  incur nalionem 
negabat.  He  did  not  wholly  deny  the  exisiencc  of  Christ  before  his  incarnation, 
but  only  his  nxistence  apart  from  the  F;ither,  or  in  our  phraseology,  his  personal 
existence.  That  sucli  was  his  opinion  will,  I  think,  be  be  very  manifest  from  tho 
second  proposition  of  Eusebius,  as  follows  :  Christ,  after  his  naliviti/,  had  no  in- 
dependent divinity,  but  the  divinity  <f  the  Father  resided  in  him.  This  proposition 
includes  the  three  following  positions:  First,  m  the  Son,  or  the  man  Christ, 
there  was  a  dicins  nature,  or  a  diviniry,  distinct  from  his  human  nature.  Yet, 
secondly,  this  divinity  was  exclusively  Christ''s  own.  Tho-c  things  are  said  to  bo 
a  person's  own,  which  he  alone  possesses,  or  does  not  hold  in  common  with 
others.  But,  thirdly,  the  divinity  in  Christ  was  that  of  the  Father ;  in  other 
words,  the  divinity  of  the  Father  dwelt  in  him.  This  third  proposition  is  not  ex- 
plicit; lor  it  might  be  adopted  by  one  holding,  that  tiie  entire  divine  [p.  701.] 
nature  was  united  wi;h  the  man  Christ,  and  by  one  who  holds,  that  only  a  part 
of  it  was  so  united.  But  here  Socrates  comes  opportunely  to  our  aid,  and  ex- 
hibits cle;irly  the  views  of  Beryllus,  (Hist.  Eccl.  L.  iii.  c.  7.  pp.  174,  175).  He 
tells  us,  that  Eusebius  and  Athanasius  assembled  a  council  at  Alexandria,  in 
which  it  was  decreed,  that  Christ  assumed,  not  only  a  body,  but  also  a  human  soul. 
He  proceeds  to  say,  that  this  s:ime  doi-trine  was  taught  by  various  of  the  holiest 
and  most  distinguished  writers  among  the  early  Christians;  and  adds,  that  tho 
council  against  Beryllus,  bishop  of  Philadelphia, — (a  slip  of  the  memory,  for 
Boslra.) — in  Arabin,  condemned  the  opposite  doctrine  of  that  bishop.  ^H  //i 
^tifvWov  ytvo/mtvn  ir-jViS^^i  ypipovTst.  Byp'jKXff)    to.  avra,  (i/u-^v^ov  rdv  'ivav^fiaDirYio-avTXy) 

i:apmS"JuKii.  Syuodus  propter  Beryllutn  facta  scribens  ad  eum  hacc  eadem  tradi- 
dii,  Christum,  qui  homo  fact  us  es%  aninia  prgeditum  fuisse.  Therefore,  Beryllus 
must  have  believed,  that  Cin-ist  h:id  no  human  aoul.  For  how  could  the  council 
have  condemned  this  error  in  its  Epistle  to  him,  if  he  was  entirely  free  from  it? 
He,  doubtless,  admitted  tli;it  Christ  had  a  sentient  soul,  which  the  ancients  dis- 
tinguished from  the  rational  soul ;  but  the  place  of  the  latter,  he  supposed,  was 
in  Christ  supplied  by  the  divinity  of  the  Father.  But  this  divinity  of  the  Father, 
which,  according  to  Beryllus,  supplied  the  place  of  a  ration.Ml  soul  in  Christ,  was 
not  the  u-hole  essence  of  the  Father;  nor  was  it  a  certain  injluence  flowing  from 
it;  but  it  was  a  most  wi-^e,  excellent,  and  immaculate  so.vZ,  issuing  from  the 
very  nature  and  essence  of  the  Father,  and  therefore  very  like  to  the  Father.  I 
am  led  to  this  supposition  by  what  Beryllus  maintained,  namely,  that  Christ,  be- 
fore his  advent  among  men,  had  not  a  distinct  essence,  or  Tnptyp:t.<th  Iva-ias-  For, 
as  it  must  follow  from  this,  that  afur  his  advent  he  had  a  circumscribed,  or  dis- 
tinct and  definable  essence,  the  opinion  of  Beryllus  can  be  explained  in  no  other 
way.  And  hence  we  may  suppose,  that  Beryllus  adopted  the  belief  that  God, 
the  author  of  all  things,  in  whom  there  is  no  natural  distinction,  formed  the  man 
Christ  in  the  womb  of  the  virgin  Mary,  and  endowed  him  with  a  sentient  soul; 
and  then,  to  enable  the  man  to  perform  the  functions  assigned  him,  united  to 
him  a  most  perfect  rational  soul,  derived  from  his  own  bosom.  And,  therefore, 
when  the  fathers  of  the  council  attempted  to  reclaim  him  from  liis  error,  they 


228  Century  Ill—Sectioji  35. 

contended  that  the  rational  soul  of  Christ  must  be  distinguished  from  his 
divine  nature. 


§  XXXV.  Paul  of  samosaia.  Mucli  more  pertinacious,  and 
producing  far  greater  disturbance  in  Syria,  was  Paul,  a  native  of 
Samosata,  and  bishop  of  the  church  at  Antioch ;  a  man  not  un- 
[p.  702.]  learned,  nor  destitute  of  genius,  but  vain  and  proud, 
and,  what  was  unusual,  sustaining  a  civil  office  under  the  govern- 
ment.(')  His  opinion,  respecting  the  divine  nature  and  Jesus 
Christ  the  Saviour,  is  so  variously  and  inconsistently  stated  by 
the  ancients,  that  it  is  with  difficulty  ascertained.  But  by  com- 
paring the  principal  documents  which  have  reached  us,  respect- 
ing the  controversy  with  him,  I  think  it  will  appear  that  Paul 
held  these  tenets  :  That  the  Father,  Son,  and  holy  Spirit,  are  not 
different  persons :  That  the  Son  and  the  holy  Spirit  are  m  God, 
just  as  reason,  or  the  reasoning  faculty  and  action,  or  the  opera- 
tive power,  are  in  a  man :  That  the  man  Christ  was  born  without 
any  connection  with  the  divine  nature :  That  the  Word  or  Reason 
of  the  Father  descended  into  the  man,  and  united  itself  with  him ; 
but  not  so  as  to  make  one  person  with  him :  That  the  Wisdom  or 
Reason  of  the  Father,  merely  dwelt  in  the  man  Christ,  and  taught 
and  wrought  miracles  by  him  :  On  account  of  this  connection  of 
the  divine  Word  with  the  man  Christ,  the  latter  is,  though  im- 
properly, called  GoD.(^) — Dionysius  of  Alexandria  first  wrote 
against  him,  and  afterwards  assembled  some  councils  against 
him  at  Antioch.  In  the  last  of  these  councils,  which  appears  to 
have  met  in  the  year  269,  one  Malchion,  a  rhetorician,  an  acute 
and  eloquent  man,  so  skilfully  drew  Paul  out  of  the  subterfuges 
in  which  he  had  before  lurked,  that  his  error  became  manifest  to 
all.  And,  as  he  would  not  renounce  his  error,  he  was  divested  of 
the  episcopal  office,  and  excluded  from  the  communion  by  com- 
mon suffrage.  This  decision  Paul  resisted ;  and  relying,  perhaps, 
on  the  patronage  of  Zenohia,  the  queen  of  Palmyra,  and  on  the 
favor  of  the  people,  he  refused  to  give  up  the  house  in  which 
the  bishop  resided,  and  in  which  the  church  was  accustomed  to 
assemble.  But  this  queen,  after  governing  the  province  of  the 
East  for  a  time,  was  conquered  by  the  emperor  Aurelian,  in  the 
year  272  ;  and  the  contest  being  brought  before  the  emperor,  he 
did  not,  indeed,  decide  it,  but  referred  it  to  the  arbitrament  of 


Life  of  Paul  of  Samosata. 

the  Romisli  and  Italian  bisliops,  who  decided  against  Paul.i^) 
He  left  behind  him  a  sect,  the  Paulians,  or  Paulianists^  which, 
however,  was  not  numerous,  and  did  not  continue  beyond  the 
fourth  century. 

(1)  All  that  has  come  down  to  us  respectuig  the  life  and  morals  of  [p.  703.] 
Paul  of  Samosata,  is  found  in  an  Epistle  composed  by  the  bishops  of  the  coun- 
cil of  Antioch,  in  which  he  was  condemned;  a  part  of  wiiich  Epistle  is  preserved 
by  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  30.  p.  279,  &c.  Paul  was  faulty  enough, 
and  unworthy  of  a  place  among  bishops,  even  if  we  suppose  these  bishops  were 
excited  by  passion,  and  exaggerated  his  faults.  I  admit  that  in  his  case  too  much 
inflaence  seems  to  have  been  allowed  to  personal  dislike,  partial  feelings,  rival- 
ship  and  envy :  and  perhaps  he  would  not  have  been  even  accused  of  any  corrupt 
doctrine,  if  he  had  not  been  rich,  honored,  and  powerful.  And  yet,  in  the  charges 
against  him,  there  are  some  things  which  could  not  have  been  fabrications;  and 
these  area  sufficient  ground  for  entertaining  an  unfavorable  opinion  of  his  life 
and  conduct. — I.  Being  born  in  indigent  and  needy  circumstances,  he  suddenly 
acquired  vast  riches  :  and  the  bishops  charge  him  wiLii  having  accumulated  his 
wealth  by  frauds,  by  deceptive  promises,  and  base  artifices. — This  charge  I  can 
readily  believe.  For  such  was  the  condition  of  Christians  in  that  age,  that  it 
was  not  possible  the  incomes  of  bishops  should  raise  them  to  opulence,  if  they 
did  nothing  unbecoming  their  office,  or  repugnant  to  religion.  I  therefore  must 
suppose,  that  the  bishops  state  facts  when  they  say,  that  Paul  heard  and  decided 
causes  according  to  the  customs  of  the  age,  and  suffered  bribes  to  be  tendered 
him  by  the  litigants. — II.  In  the  conventions  of  the  clergy,  he  imitated  the 
pomp  of  civil  magistrates  and  judges.  For  he  erected  for  himself  a  tribunal,  and 
an  elevated  throne,  from  which  he  pronounced  judgments;  and  he  had  a  private 
audience  room,  like  the  Roman  magistrates. — This  also,  I  have  no  doubt,  was 
true.  For  the  whole  history  of  Paul  shows,  that  he  was  a  proud,  arrogant  and 
vain  man.  Nor  could  one  who  was  much  at  court,  and  high  in  favor  there,  relish 
the  holy  and  devout  modesty  of  the  Christian  bishops. — III.  He  loved  to  have 
his  discourses  received  by  the  people,  as  the  declamations  of  the  rhetoricians  and 
sophists  were,  with  clappings  and  applauding  acclamations;  and  he  rebuked  those 
who  withheld  from  him  this  honor. — This  perhaps  is  not  perfectly  true  :  and  yet 
it  is  not  altogether  incredible.  I  suspect  he  was  a  sophist  and  rhetorician,  be- 
fore he  became  a  Christian;  and  therefore  was  unwilling  to  forego  that  honor 
among  Christians,  which  he  had  long  been  accustomed  to  receive  from  his  pu- 
pils.— IV.  He  greatly  lauded  himself  in  his  discourses,  and  spoke  disparagingly 
of  the  ancient  doctors. — Perhaps,  he  affirmed  that  certain  religious  doctrines 
were  not  explained  and  inculcated  with  sufficient  clearness  and  accuracy  by  the 
ancients. — V.  He  abolished  the  use  of  the  hymns  in  honor  of  Cln-ist,  to  which 
the  people  had  been  accustomed. — There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  truth  of  this 
charge.  But  I  would  direct  attention  to  his  reasons  for  discontinuing  those 
hymns.  The  bishops,  his  accusers,  do  not  say,  that  he  discarded  those  hymns  be- 
cause they  contained  any  errors,  but  because  they  were  recent^  and  com-  [p.  704.] 
posed  by  modem  persons.     They  say  nothing  further :  but  I  will  state  how  I  uu- 


230  Century  III— Section  35. 

dtTsland  the  matter.  Paul  discontinued  the  customary  liymns,  as  being  recent 
productions,  and  substituted  inlheii- phice  the  ancient  P^al^ls  of  DaviJ,  which  he 
wished  to  have  used  exclusively.  For,  beinjr  n  shrewd  man,  and  acquainted 
with  the  ways  of  the  court,  he  wished  in  this  matter  to  gratify  the  feelings  of 
queen  Zenobia,  his  patroness;  who,  as  welenrn  from  Aihanasius and  others,  was 
attached  to  the  Jewish  mode  of  worship. —  VF.  He  directed  women  to  sing 
hymns  to  his  praise,  in  a  public  assembly  on  the  gi-eat  festival  of  Easter,  and 
cau.sed  the  neighbouring  bishops  and  presbyters  to  laud  him  in  their  sermons. — 
That  such  things  occurred,  namely,  that  Paul  was  publicly  lauded  by  women 
and  by  neighbouring  bishops  and  presbyters,  I  can  believe  without  much  diffi- 
culty; but  that  he  was  so  infatuated,  and  so  greedy  of  praise,  as  boldly  to  urge 
forward  these  proclaimers  of  his  virtues,  I  cannot  believe  so  easily.  I  suspect 
that  Paul,  nfter  the  controversy  arising  from  his  novel  opinions  had  become 
warm,  and  the  people  had  become  divided  into  factions  and  parties,  persuaded 
some  bishops  and  presbyters  to  defend  and  support  his  cause  in  public  discourses ; 
and, through  his  satellites,  he  encouraged  some  women,  on  Easter  day,  when  the 
peojile  were  all  assembled,  suddenly  to  shout  forth  his  praise ; — in  order  to  con- 
ciliate popular  fiivor  to  him,  and  to  check  the  rising  storm  of  opposition. — VII. 
He  allowed  his  presbyters  and  deacons,  among  other  wrong  things,  to  keep  the 
ho-caWad  sub-inlroduced  {<rv\ii9dKTdLCy  subintroductas)  icomen :  and  he  himself 
kept  two  young  women,  and  carried  them  with  him  when  he  travelled. — This 
was  not  contrary  to  the  custom  of  the  priests  of  that  age  :  of  which  1  have  spo- 
ken elsewhere.  But  the  bishops  do  not  accuse  Paul  of  any  illicit  intercourse 
ti'ith  these  women  :  whence  it  appears,  that  though  a  luxurious  liver,  he  was  not 
altogether  regardless  of  the  laws  of  chastity  and  decorum. 

But  it  clearly  was  unusual  and  extraordinary,  that  while  sustaining  the  office 
of  a  bishop  among  Christians,  he  held  at  the  same  time  a  high  ciiil  ojjice  under 
the  government;  for  he  was  a  Ducenarius  Procurator.  This  kind  of  judges  was 
instituted  by  Augustus;  and  they  bore  the  title  of  Ducenarii^  from  the  annual 
salary  of  two  hundred  sestertia  allowed  them.  They  are  of! en  mentioned  in 
ancient  books  and  inscriptions.  That  there  were  Ducenarii  Procuratores  in 
Syria,  and  particularly  at  Palmyra,  where  Paul  was  in  favor,  is  put  beyond  all 
doubt  by  the  inscriptions  found  at  Palmyra,  and  published  by  Abrah.  Seller. 
(See  his  Antiquities  of  Palmyra,  p.  166.  167.  Lond.  1696.  8.)  But  let  us  at- 
tend to  the  complaints  of  the  bishops  on  this  subject,  in  Eusebius,  (L,  vii.  e.  30.); 

i/>{,>iXa     ppovli     Kui     virif>-^f>Tai      x-otuikol      d'^tMuara      urcJ^uo/nivos.       Kdt      J'cvKHVdpioi 

fxaWov  ii  'ETT-tVxoTTCf  3-tXcjv  sctxifr^-At.  jMngna  mcditatur,  et  srcculares  gerit 
dignitates ;  et  Ducenarius  vocari  mavult,  quam  cpiscopus.  Some  learned 
[p.  705.]  men,  not  able  to  believe  that  a  bishop  among  the  Christians,  a  people 
odious  and  condemned  by  the  laws,  was  honored  with  so  liigh  an  office  among 
the  Romans,  try  to  construe  the  language  of  the  bishops  differently  from  the 
common  rendering.  Examples  enough  are  found  of  Christians  sustaining  dis- 
tinguished offices  in  the  Roman  commonwealth,  but  that  a  Christian  bishop  or 
presbijler  should  be  enrolled  among  the  Judges  and  Magistrates  of  the  Roman 
empire,  is  without  example,  or  any  probability,  nay,  seems  to  be  impossible.  I 
formerly  conjectured,  that  Paul  of  Samosatahad  been  a  Ducenarius  ProcuratoTy 


L^fe    of  Paul   of  Samosata.  231 

beTore  his  conversion  to  Christianity;  which,  if  it  were  the  fact,  would  fliow  how 
two  so  very  difTerent  othces,  the  one  sacred  the  other  civil,  c;inie  to  be  united  in 
the  man.  Bnt  the  language  of  the  bishops  above  cited,  will  not  comport  with 
this  sni>posiiion  :  for  it  could  not  have  been  regarded  as  criminal  in  Paul,  to 
retain  his  civil  ofKce  after  his  conversion;  and  the  Christians  who  created  a 
Ducenarius  a  bishop,  would  have  been  more  criminal  than  Paul,  who  merely  did 
not  refuse  the  sacred  otiiee  but  superadded  it  to  his  civil  office.  Some  learned 
men,  therefore,  feeling  the  difficulties  of  the  case,  would  give  a  diflerent  sense  to 
the  language  of  the  bishops.  They  say,  the  bishops  do  not  state  that  Paul  teas  in 
fact  a  Dtk-enarius,  but  that  he  would  rather  be  called  a  Ducenarius  than  a  bishop  • 
and  therefore  they  only  show  us,  that  he  undervalued  the  title  of  bishop,  and 
would  have  been  glad,  if  he  could,  to  exchange  it  for  the  more  splendid  title  of 
Ducenarius.  But,  however  specious  this  interpretation  may  seem  to  be,  neither 
the  words  preceding  nor  those  that  follov/,  will  permit  it.  For  the  bishops 
say,  most  explicitly,  that  he  was  K(,o-fAixa  d^idJ/naTa  CrroS'vofAfvosy  clothed 
with  worldly  honors,  and  not  that  he  merely  coveted  them.  And  immediately 
after,  they  add  that  he  moved  in  stale  through  the  forum,  read  aloud  and  publicly 
the  letters  (presented),  and  dictated  (answers),  and  appeared  loitha  throng  (of  at- 
tendants), preceding  and  following  after  him.  Such  things  would  not  comport  with 
the  office  of  a  Christian  bishop,  who,  jf  he  should  act  in  such  a  majiner,  would 
undoubtedly  be  thought  deranged  or  out  of  his  senses;  but  they  are  perfectly  in 
cliaracter  and  keeping  for  a  Ducenary  Judge  or  Magistrate;  for  such  a  man, 
clothed  in  the  insignia  of  his  office,  and  guarded  by  his  attendants,  at  certain 
seasons  presented  himself  before  the  people,  in  the  forum,  where  causes  were 
usually  tried;  with  lictors  going  before  him,  and  servants  and  ministers  about 
liim.  And  as  he  passed  along,  many  petitioners,  as  was  the  custom,  presented 
to  him  their  petitions;  and  he,  being  the  judge,  read  the  petitions  on  the  spot, 
gave  his  decision,  and  dictated  it  to  the  attending  scribes. — But,  say  they,  can  it 
be  believed,  that  the  emperor  would  confer  an  office  of  so  much  importance  on  a 
Christian  bishop? — I  answer,  it  is  not  wholly  incredible.  This  Paul  was  a  very 
prosperous  man,  and  possessed  great  wealth:  and  nothing  is  too  high  [p.  706.] 
to  be  reached  by  means  of  money.  The  Roman  provincial  governors  often  sold 
the  public  offices.  But  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  suppose,  that  this  bishop  ob- 
tained the  office  of  a  Ducenarius  from  the  emperor.  It  is  known  from  the  Roman 
history  of  those  times,  that  Zenobia,  the  wife  of  Odenatus,  a  petty  king  of  the  Pal- 
myrenians,  a  woman  of  great  energy,  and  endowed  with  uncommon  intellectual 
and  executive  powers,  governed  the  East,  directing  all  public  rffairs  at  her  dis- 
cretion, during  the  reign  of  the  emperor  Gallienus,  from  A.  D.  263,  to  the  year 
272.  Into  the  good  graces  of  the  queen,  who  was  a  great  admirer  <  f  learning 
and  learned  men,  Paul,  being  a  man  of  learning,  a  rhetorician,  and  not  ignorant 
of  the  fine  arts,  and  of  the  ways  of  courts,  had  insinuated  himself;  as  we  are 
expressly  told  by  Alhanasius,  (Ej)ist.  ad.  So'itaiios,  0pp.  torn,  I.  p.  386,  &;c. 
and  in  Monifaucon's  Collectio  Nova  Patr.  et  ^criptor.  Grtecor.  torn.  II.  p.  20.) 
and  by  Theodoret,  Chrysos'om,  Nicephorus,  (Hist.  Eccl.  L.  vi.  c.  27.  p.  420.)  and  by 
others.  From  this  queen,  therefore,  a.<,  others  before  me  have  conjectured,  Paul 
obtiiued,  perhaps,  this  office. — And  yet  to  this  queen  also,  whom  he  was  most 


232  Century  III— Section  35. 

studious  to  please,  he  o;ved  all  those  troubles,  under  which,  after  various  con- 
tests, he  succumbed.  He  was,  as  his  conduct  shows,  not  one  of  those  who 
seek  fame  by  means  of  religious  controversies,  but  he  was  particularly  eager  for 
wealth  and  honor.  Hence  it  is  more  than  probable,  that  he  would  have  left 
his  people  to  believe  what  they  pleased,  had  not  his  thirst  for  wealth  and  ho- 
nors induced  him  to  propose  innovations.  Zenobia,  as  is  certain  from  the  testi- 
mony of  Afhajiasius  and  others,  was  either  a  Jewess,  or  at  least  exceedingly 
partial  to  the  Jewish  religion.  Hence,  like  all  the  Jews,  she  was  disgusted 
with  the  christian  doctrines  of  three  persons  in  one  God,  and  of  the  generation 
of  the  Son  of  God.  To  abate  her  disgust,  Paul  accommodated  his  religion,  as 
far  as  possible,  to  the  taste  of  the  queen,  by  discarding  all  that  was  particularly 
repugnant  to  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  one  individual  God.  This  is  stated  by 
Theodoret,  (Ha; ret.  Fabul.  L.  ii.  c.  8.  p.  222.)  by  Chrysostom,  (Homil.  viii.  in  Jo- 
hann.  0pp.  torn.  viii.  p.  48.  ed.  Bened.)  and  by  others.  And  as  all  his  opinions 
concerning  God  and  Christ,  (as  we  shall  soon  see,)  were  manifestly  suited  to 
repress  the  cavils  of  the  Jews,  who  contended  that  the  Christians  subverted  the 
unity  of  the  divine  nature,  and  converted  God  into  a  man, — nothing,  in  my 
opinion,  is  more  credible  than  the  above  statement.  And  the  same  desire  to 
gratify  the  feelings  of  the  queen,  induced  him,  as  before  remarked,  to  order  the 
discontinuance  of  the  Hymns  in  common  use  among  christians,  and  the  substi- 
tution of  tbe  Psalms  of  David.  For  it  was  his  aim,  to  make  the  christian 
[p.  707.]  religion  appear  to  ditler  as  little  as  possible  from  that  of  the  Jews. 

(2)  Respecting  the  impiety  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  scarcely  any  writer  since 
the  third  century,  who  has  treated  of  the  trinity  of  persons  in  God,  and  of 
Christ,  either  formally  or  incidentally,  is  silent ;  and  the  writers  on  heresies, 
one  and  all,  place  this  man  among  the  worst  corrupters  of  revealed  truth,  and 
inveigh  against  him  vehemently  :  so  Epiphanius,  Theodoret,  Augustine,  Damas- 
cenus,  and  the  rest.  Moreover,  some  of  the  public  documents  of  the  proceed- 
ings against  him,  have  reached  us ;  a  circumstance  which  has  not  occurred  in 
regard  to  most  of  the  other  heretics.  For  there  is  extant,  I.  a  great  part  of  the 
Epistle  of  the  bishops,  by  whose  decision  he  was  condemned  in  the  council  at 
Antioch,  addressed  to  all  the  bishops  of  Christendom,  to  make  it  manifest  that 
they  had  good  reasons  for  what  they  had  done :  In  Eusebius,  (Hist.  Eccl.  L. 
vii.  c.  30.  p.  279,  &c.)  But  it  is  to  be  regretted,  that  Eusebius  has  preserved 
only  that  part  of  the  Epistle  which  recounts  the  vices  and  delinquencies  of  the 
man,  omitting  the  part  which  stated  his  doctrines  or  errors.  If  the  latter  had 
been  preserved,  we  could  more  confidently  and  more  definitely  determine  what 
were  his  principles. — There  is  extant,  II.  a  copy  of  one  of  the  Epistles  of  the 
bishops  of  the  council,  addressed  to  Paul,  relating  to  the  controversy  with  him: 
in  the  Bibliotheca  Patrum  Parisiensis,  (tom.  xi.  p.  302.  ed.  Paris.  1644.  Fol.) 
In  this  Epistle,  six  of  the  bishops  state  their  own  opinions  respecting  God  and 
Christ,  and  inquire  of  him,  whether  he  disagrees  with  them. — There  is  extant, 
III.  an  Epistle  of  Dionysius,  of  Alexandria,  to  Paul  of  Samosata,  in  which  the 
writer  chides  and  confutes  him  ;  in  the  same  Bibliotheca  Patrum,  (tom.  xi. 
p.  273.)  Some  very  erudite  men,  and  for  reasons  worthy  of  consideration,  deny 
indeed,  that  this  Epistle  was  written  by  Dionysius.     See  Henry  de  Valois  on 


Doctrines  of  Paul  of  Samosata.  233 

Eiisebius,  (p.  155.)  The  Epistle  is  unquestionably  veiy  nnciont,  and  it  was 
addressed  to  Paul  by  some  bishop  or  presbyter,  whose  name  being  omitted  in 
the  early  copy,  some  person,  recollecting-  that  Dionysius  was  an  opposer  of  Paul, 
ascribed  the  Epistle  to  him.  From  Question  x.  and  the  Answer  to  it,  (p.  298.) 
it  seems  to  be  inferable,  that  the  writer  of  the  Epistle,  and  of  the  Answers  to 
the  Questions,  was  a  'presbyter:  for  he  is  so  styled  by  Paul. — There  are  extant, 
IV.  ten  Questions  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  addressed  to  Dionysius  of  Alexandria, 
and  the  Answers  of  the  latter  to  these  Questions :  in  the  same  Bibliotheca  Pa- 
trum,  (tom.  xi.  p.  278.)  Of  these,  my  opinion  is  the  same  as  of  the  EpLstle 
above  mentioned.  That  the  Questions  were  composed  by  Paul  himself,  I  do 
not  hesitate  to  believe,  because  I  see  no  ground  for  doubt.  The  Answers  were 
not  written  by  Dionysius,  but  by  some  one  of  those  with  whom  Paul  had  dis- 
cussion respecting  his  opinions. — But  this  unequalled  abundance  of  documents 
relative  to  the  heresy  of  Paul,  has  not  prevented  a  great  diversity  in  opinion, 
both  among  the  ancients  and  the  moderns,  respecting  his  real  sentiments,  [p.  708.] 
For  the  ancients  speak,  sometimes  obscurely,  sometimes  inconsistently,  and 
sometimes  they  mistake,  either  from  passion  or  prejudice ;  and  hence  the 
moderns  differ  widely,  some  criminating,  and  some  vindicating  the  man.  To 
find  the  truth,  if  possible,  among  these  uncertainties,  I  will  first  collect  together 
all  that  can  be  learned,  respecting  Paul's  sentiments,  from  those  Epistles  and 
ancient  documents  just  described ;  for  they  are  certainly  more  veracious  and 
trustworthy,  than  any  others.  And  if  we  then  compare  vt^ith  these  statements, 
whatever  has  reached  us  from  other  ancient  sources,  we  shall  see  what  we 
ought  to  admit,  and  what  w^e  should  reject.  For  whatever  accords  with  those 
earliest  testimonies,  must  doubtless  be  regarded  as  true ;  and  whatever  contra- 
dicts them,  bears  the  marks  of  falsehood. 

I.  The  bishops  by  whom  Paul  was  condemned,  in  their  Epistle,  preserved 
by  Eusebius,  say  : — First,  That  he  denied  his  God  and  Lord :  top  Qtdv  tuvrlu 
Kai  Kvpiov  dfvovf^hcu.  (p.  280.) — Secondly,  That  before  the  bishops,  assembled 
in  council,  he  would  not  acknowledge  that  the  Son  of  God  descended  f?-om  heaven : 
Tdv  viov  Tou  ©soy  j|  oupcivou  KXTcixiw^-cviti. —  Thirdly,  That  he  distinctly  said, 
Jesus  Clirist  originated  on  earth  :  Aiyn  V^o-c^Zv  Xptj-rdv  KaTuB-iv. — Fourthly, 
That  he  wdnt  over  to  the  abominable  heresy  of  Arlemas.  What  the  heresy  of 
Artemas  was,  with  which  they  tax  Paul,  is  a  question  of  doubt  and  uncertainty. 
I  shall  therefore  pass  by  this  charge,  and  consider  only  the  others ;  in  which, 
doubtless,  the  chief  error  of  Paul  w'as  included,  and  that  error  which  was  the 
cause  of  so  much  odium  against  him. — From  these  charges  it  is  evident,  that  he 
would  not  acknowledge  Jesus  Christ  to  be  both  God  and  man  ;  or,  he  denied, 
that  Jesus  Christ  wms  a  person — if  I  may  so  say,  compounded  of  God  and  man. 
For  when  he  said,  the  Son  of  God  did  not  descend  from  heaven,  but  originated  on 
the  earth,  what  could  he  mean,  but  that  Christ  was  a  mere  man,  though  divinely 
begotten  of  the  virgin  Mary  1  And  what  could  the  bishops  mean,  when  they 
taxed  him  with  denying  his  God  and  Lord,  but  that  he  divested  Christ  of  his 
divinity,  or  denied  that  a  divine  person  received  the  man  Christ  into  union  with 
himself?  From  the  same  charges  it  also  appears,  that  he  called  the  manC\msi 
the   Son  of  God;  and  this,  undoubtedly,  because  he  was  supernaturally  pro- 


234  Century  III— Section  35. 

duced  from  the  virgin  IMary.  For  he  denied  Ihnt  the  Son  of  God  descended 
from  heaven  ;  and  ns  this,  most  certainly,  must  be  understood  as  ret'errinn-  to 
Chris/,  it  is  m:iniiest  that  lie  applied  the  litle  Soji  of  God  to  the  man  Christ. 
And  this  alone  is  a  sufficient  refutation  of  the  error  of  those  who  believe,  what 
Marias  Mercalor  asserts,  (de  xii.  Anathematismis  Nestorii,  in  his  0pp.  tom.  ii. 
p.  128.)  that  Paul  of  Samosala  represented  Christ  as  being  a  man,  horn  like 
other  men  of  two  parents.  Yet  we  have  a  better  witness  for  confuting  this  error, 
in  Paul  himself,  who  distinctly  snys,  (Quaestio  v.  in  the  Bibliofh.  Patr.  tom. 

xi.  p.  286.)  :  I'^^rtuf  o  yiwuB-itiiK  ttveviuutos  ayiou  xat  Manias  t«?  TraoS-tfiw. 
[p.  709.]  Jesus  ex  Maria  virgine  et  Spiritu  sancto  natus  est. — That  the  bishops, 
whose  charges  we  are  considering,  did  him  no  injustice,  he  himself  makes 
manifest.  For  all  his  ten  Questions  now  extant,  whether  addressed  to  Dionysius 
or  to  another  person,  have  one  sole  aim,  namely,  to  evince,  by  means  of  various 
texts  of  scripture  brought  together,  that  Christ  was  a  mere  man,  and  destitute 
of  any  divinity  ;  or,  what  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  to  confute  the  belief  that 
the  divine  and  human  natures  united  in  Christ  produced  one  person.  It  is  there- 
fore not  necessary  to  produce  the  testimony  of  others  among  the  ancients  to 
the  same  point.  And  yet  I  will  add  that  of  Simeon  Betharsamensis,  a  celebrated 
Persian,  near  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century,  whose  testimony  I  regard  as 
of  more  value  than  that  of  all  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers.  In  his  Epistle  on 
the  heresy  of  the  Nestorians,  (in  Jos.  Sim.  Assemans  Bibliotheca  Oriental. 
Clement.  Vatie.  tom.  i.  p.  347.)  he  says:  Paulus  Samosatcnus  de  bcata  ^laria 
haec  dicebat :  Nudum  hominem  genuit  Maria,  nee  post  partum  virgo  permansit. 
Christum  autem  appellavit  crealum,  factum,  mortalem  et  fdium  (Dei)  ex  gratia. 
De  se  ipso  vero  dicebat :  Ego  quoque  si  voluero,  Christus  ero,  quum  ego  et 
Chrisius  unius,  ejusdemque  simus  naiurce.  These  statements  accord  perfectly 
with  the  allegations  of  the  bishops,  and  with  the  character  of  Paul,  who  was 
rash  and  extravagant.  Epiphanivs  also,  (Heeres.  Ixv.  p.  617.)  says  of  him: 
that  he  gate  himself  the  appellation  of  Christ:  a  declaration  which  is  elucidated 
by  the  quotation  from  the  Persian  Simeon. 

II.  The  six  bishops  of  the  council  of  Antioch,  in  their  letter  to  Paul  before 
sentence  was  pronounced  upon  him,  while  they  state  their  own  doctrine  respect- 
ing God  and  Christ,  condemn  some  errors  of  their  adversary.  In  the  first  place, 
they  say,  it  could  not  be  endured,  that  he  should  inculcate,  Ctiv  to-j  Qio-j  etdu  .«» 
Itvat  Trpi)  Kara&'jKyit  k^t/xcu.  Filium  Dei  non  esse  Deum  ante  constitutionem  mundi. 

And,  Suo  Qi'.ijs  x-aTayycWiO-^aiy  cav  o  Cids  rou  Qiou  Qidi  Kitfv(TiTHTai.    DCOS  illos  (/moS 

inducere,  qui  filium  Dei  praedicent  Deum  esse.  (Bibliotheca  Patr.  tom.  xi. 
p.  303.)  The  bishops  speak  less  definitely  than  could  be  wished;  in  consequence, 
perhaps,  of  the  studied  obscurity  of  Paul,  who  did  not  wish,  his  real  sentiments 
to  be  distinctly  known.  And  yet  it  is  not  di.TJcult  to  s^e,  whither  tend  the  senti- 
ments they  attribute  to  him.  First,  he  acknowledged,  that  there  is  something  in 
God,  tcldch  the  Scriptures  call  the  Son  of  God.  lie  therefore  supposed,  that 
there  are  tico  Sons  (f  God;  the  one  h>j  grace,  the  man  Christ;  the  other  by  naluie, 
*who  existed  long  before  the  other  Son. — Secondly.  He  denied,  that  the  latter  Son 
of  God,  was  God  anterior  to  the  creation  of  the  world. — Thirdly.  And  consequently 
he  held,  that  this  Son  of  God  became.  God,  at  the  time  the  world  loas  created. — The^o 


Doctrines  of  Paul  of  Samosata.  23b 

fitatomonts  appear  confused,  and  very  difterent  from  the  common  apprehensions: 
but  thoy  will  ;idiuit  of  elucidation.  Paul  meant  to  say,  that  the  energy^ — or,  if 
any  prefer  it,  ihe  Divine  energy,  which  he  denominated  the  Son  of  God^  was 
hidden  in  God,  before  the  creation  of  the  world;  but  that,  in  a  sense,  it  issued 
out  from  God,  and  began  to  have  some  existence  exterior  to  God,  at  the  time 
God  formed  the  created  universe. — Fourthly.  Hence,  he  inferred, //ta/  [p.  710.] 
thoae  profess  two  Gods,  (or  speak  of  two  as  in  the  place  of  the  one  God,)  who  pro- 
claim the  Son  of  God  to  be  God :  but  undoubtedly,  considering  what  precedes, 
the  linutation  should  be  added:  before  the  creation  of  the  world.  His  belief  was, 
that  //.'C?/ divide  the  one  God  into  two  Gods,  who  make  the  Son  of  God  to  have 
existed  as  a  person,  distinct  from  the  Father,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world. 
He  did  not  deny,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  Son  of  God  was,  in  some  sense, 
made  God,  at  the  time  the  world  was  created. — From  all  this  we  learn,  that 
Paul  denied  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  also  his  personal  dis- 
tinctness from  the  Fatl-.er :  and  he  supposed,  that  when  God  was  about  to  create 
the  woild,  he  sent  out  from  himself  a  certain  energy,  wliich  is  called  the  8on  of 
God,  and  also  God,  although  it  is  nothing  distinct  from  God.  These  ideas  may 
be  further  illustrated,  by  the  subsequent  charge  of  the  bishops;  in  which  they 
rot  obscurely  tax  Paul,  wi.h  representing  God  the  Father  as  creating  the  world 
by  the  Word  (w?  cT/'  ipyivcu  x.ai  tjrto-Tx'iMxj  djuri(rTiiTcv)  as  by  an  instrument^ 
and  by  intelligence,  having  no  separate  existence  or  personality.  For  it  hence  ap- 
pears, that  by  the  Son  or  Word (f  God,  he  understood  the  divine  wisdom  {iiriTri- 
M«>')i  which,  before  the  world  was  created,  had  been  at  rest  in  God,  and  hidden 
during  numberless  ages;  but  now,  when  the  supreme  God  formed  the  purpose 
of  creating  the  world,  it  exhibited  its  powers,  and  as  it  were  came  out  from  tho 
bosom  of  the  Father;  or  in  other  words,  it  manifested  its  presence,  by  discrimi- 
nating, acting,  and  operating.  From  that  time  onward,  it  is  called,  though  figu- 
ratively, the  Son  of  God,  because  it  proceeded  forth  from  God,  just  as  a  son  does 
from  his  parents;  and  also  God,  because  it  is  essentially  God,  and  can  be  con- 
ceived of  as  separate  from  him  only  by  an  abstraction  of  the  mind.  In  perfect 
accordance  with  these  views,  are  the  statements  of  other  ancient  writers.  Thus 
Epiphanius,  (Ha3res.  Ixv.  p.  608.)  states  the  sentiments  of  Paul:  God  ihe  Fa- 
ther, Son  and  Spii'it,  are  one  God.  The  Word  and  Spirit  are  ever  in  God,  as 
reason  is  in  man  :  the  Son  of  God  has  no  separate  existence,  but  he  exists  in  God. 
....  vi6z  tv  Tu>  TTorfi,  wj  Xs^&f  iv  dvB-pcomi).  The  Son  is  in  the  Father,  as 
reason  (not  speech,  sermo,  as  Petavius  rendered  it:  but  t^iTr^fxn,  as  the  bishops 
term  it.)  ts  in  man.  Epiphanius,  who  as  an  author,  was  not  distinguished  for 
his  accuracy  and  research,  has  not  stated  all  that  Paul  held,  but  what  he  has 
stated,  is  very  well.  I  omit  similar  citations  from  Athanasius  and  others, that 
the  discussion  may  not  be  too  prolix. 

III.  Dionysius,  or  whoever  wrote  the  epistle  bearing  his  name,  (in  the  Bib- 
liothecaPatr.  tom.  xi.  p.  273.  274.)  says  that  Paid  taught:  J'Co  (esse)  vTroTrda-us 

xu(    JC'j    rp'jTuna     Toy     ivdi     Y^fxCiv     XpiTT'.u,     Kal    cTys      X/JcVTOff,  kui    S^'jo    CtoOi,  ha 
pv^it     Tuv    CiCv    Toy    GfiU    TrpoiJ-iTjp^ov-a,    kui    i^a    Kar     lu:\vfj.[av    \pi7rov    nui    i/idr 

ToZ   ^■i^\S^.  duas   esse  hypostases  et  du-is  fornias  (so  I  would  render  the  word 
wfiffu-TTa,  rather  than  by  personas)  unius  Christi,  et  duos  Chrislos,  ac  duos  filios. 


236  Centimj  III— Section  35. 

[p.  711.]  unum  natura  filium  Dei,  qui  fuit  ante  sa?cula,et  iinum  homonyme  Chris- 
tum et  filium  David,  qui  secundum  bcneplacitum  (x^t'  st/iTsx/xv)  Dei  accepit 
nomen  filii.  Wlietlier  Paul  so  expressed  himself,  or  whether  Diovysius  so  in- 
ferred from  the  language  of  Paul,  there  is  nothing  here  disagreeing  with  the 
opinions  of  Paul.  For  since  he  declared  Christ  to  be  a  mere  man,  born  of 
Mary  ;  and  denied  that  the  Wisdom  of  God,  combined  with  the  man  Christ, 
constituted  one  person ;  and  yet  asserted,  that  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  by 
whom  the  world  was  created,  dwelt  in  the  man  Christ ;  and  as  he  also  called 
the  man  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  and  applied  the  same  appellation,  Son  of  God, 
to  that  power  of  the  divine  Wisdom  which  projected  the  world; — it  must 
necessarily  be,  that  in  some  sense,  he  recognized  two  distinct  and  separate 
things  in  Christ,  two  forms,  two  Sons,  two  Christs.  And  here  it  should  be 
noticed,  that  the  word  vTroa-Ttta-isy  in  the  language  of  Dionysius,  is  not  to 
be  understood  in  our  sense  of  the  term,  but  in  a  broader  acceptation.  And 
from  the  Questions  of  Paul,  (Quast.  vii.  p.  290.)  it  appears,  that  he  used  the 
word  vTroa-TAo-ic  in  a  broad  sense,  as  applicable  to  any  thing  that  is  or 
exists,  whether  it  subsists  by  itself,  or  only  in  something  else.  The  eternal 
Son  of  God,  which  Paul  acknowledged  to  exist  in  Christ,  he  could  not  have 
regarded  as  truly  an  CTrio-rcta-i?  or  person.  For,  if  he  had  so  regarded  it, 
he  would  have  admitted  the  very  thing  which  he  denied,  namely,  that  the  Son 
of  God  is  a  person  distinct  from  the  person  of  the  Father. — In  this  same  Epistle, 
(p.  274.)  Dionysius  blames  Paul  for  saying :  Hominem  Christum  magis  Deo 
placuisse,  quam  omnes  homines,  ad  habitandum  in  eo  (avm  T-iif  d(rKiirix.it;  kui 
iirnzovov  StKntoa-uvHs)  idque  sine  dura  et  laboriosa  exercitatione  justitise.  He 
therefore  admitted,  that  God,  in  the  sense  before  explained,  i.  e.  as  being  the 
Wisdom  of  God,  dwelt  in  Christ. — But,  he  added,  that  God  dwelt  in  Christ,  sine 
laboriosa  jiisiitiai  exercitatione.  This  well  explains  the  views  of  Paul,  and  in 
part  confirms  my  former  remarks.  For  PauVs  meaning  is,  that  Christ,  while 
obeying  the  commands  of  the  law,  and  suffering  its  penalties,  acted  and  suf- 
fered alone  ;  nor  did  God,  as  present  with  him,  either  act  or  suffer  along  with 
the  man  Christ.  And  hence  it  appears,  that  Paul  rejected  altogether  the 
union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures  in  Christ.  And  in  this  manner,  Dio- 
nysius correctly  understood  him ;  as  appears  from  the  confutation  he  subjoined, 
in  which  he  endeavors  to  show,  by  many  proofs,  that  God  was  horn  in  Christ, 
and  suffered  the  penalties,  and  died.  More  passages,  of  a  similar  character, 
might  be  drawn  from  this  Epistle ;  but  they  are  not  needed. 

IV.  In  the  ten  Questions  proposed  by  Paul  to  Dionysius,  the  sole  aim  of 
Paul  is,  to  prove  that  the  man  born  of  Mary  had  no  community  of  nature  or  of 
action  with  God  dwelling  in  him.  Hence  he  brings  forward  the  texts  in  which 
the  soul  of  Christ  is  said  to  be  troubled  and  sorrowful.  (John,  xii.  27.  Matt. 
xxvi.  28.)  And  he  then  asks  :  Can  the  nature  of  God  be  sorrowful  and  troubled  ? 
[p.  712.]  And  he  lays  before  his  antagonist,  the  words  of  Christ  to  the  Jews, 
Destroy  this  temple,  &c.  (John,  ii.  19.)  and  then  demands :  Can  God  be  dissolved  1 
And  this  objection,  so  easy  of  solution,  Dionysius  answers  miserably,  by  re- 
sorting to  a  mystical  interpretation.  For  he  would  have  Paul  believe,  that  by 
the  temple  which  Christ  represents  as  to  be  dissolved,  must  be  understood  the 


Doctrines  of  Paul  of  Samosata.  237 

disciples  of  Christ ;  because  these  tlie  Jews  actually  dissolved,  that  is,  disporsod 
and  scattered.  And  some  of  the  other  answers  are  no  better.  In  Question  v. 
(p.  286.)  Paul  says:  Luke  tells  us  (ch.  ii.  40.)  that  Christ  grew.  But  can  God 
grow  ?  If,  therefore,  Christ  grew,  he  was  nothing  but  a  rnan.  With  this  ar- 
gument, the  good  Dio7ujsius  is  greatly  puzzled.  But  at  length  he  finds  his 
way  out,  and  says:  The  bojj  who,  as  Luke  tells  us,  grew  and  loaxed 
strong,  is  the  church;  so  that  Av^}i<ns  tou  Qdu  lis  rHv  iKx.\»(r(ai.v  Itti,  (he 
growth  of  God,  relates  to  the  church :  for  it  is  recorded  in  the  Acts,  that  the 
church  increased  daily  and  was  enlarged ;  and  that  the  word  of  God  increased 
every  day.  How  ingenious  and  beautiful !  If  all  the  bishops  who  opposed 
Paul,  were  like  this  Dionysius  for  acuteness  and  genius,  I  do  not  wonder  they 
could  not  refute  him.  And  lest  this  fine  response  should  lose  its  force  and 
beauty,  Dionysius  closes  it  with  exquisite  taunts. — But  I  will  desist.  Paul, 
undoubtedly,  had  wrong  views,  and  views  very  different  from  those  which  the 
scriptures  inculcate.  But  his  adversaries  also  appear  to  have  embraced  more 
than  one  error,  and  they  had  not  sufficiently  precise  and  clear  ideas  on  the  sub- 
ject they  discussed. 

These  statements,  derived  from  the  best  and  most  credable  documents  on  the 
subject,  if  carefully  examined  and  compared  together,  will  give  us  easy  access 
to  the  real  sentiments  of  Paul  of  Samosata.  The  system  he  embraced,  so  far 
as  it  can  be  ascertained  at  the  present  day,  is  contained  in  the  following  propo- 
sitions.— I.  God  is  a  perfectly  simple  unit,  in  whom  there  is  no  division  into 
parts  whatever ! — II.  Therefore,  all  that  common  christians  teach,  respecting 
different  persons  in  God,  an  eternal  Son  of  God,  and  his  generation  from  eter- 
nity, is  false,  and  should  be  corrected  by  the  holy  scriptures. — III.  The  scrip- 
tures speak  indeed  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  holy  Spirit.  But  those  texts 
must  be  so  understood,  as  not  to  militate  with  the  clearest  and  most  certain 
doctrine  of  both  reason  and  scripture,  respecting  the  unity  of  the  divine  na- 
ture.— IV.  The  Son  of  God  mentioned  in  the  scriptures,  is  merely  the 
Reason  {Kayo^)  and  Wisdom  (i7n<rTriu»)  of  God.— ^Those  who  have  trans- 
lated the  Greek  writers  concerning  Paul,  into  Latin, — De  Valois,  Petavius,  and 
others, — commonly  render  the  Greek  word  xoycgy  by  the  Latin  word  Ver- 
bum.  This  is  wrong.  From  the  Epistle  of  the  bishops  at  Antioch  to  Paul,  it 
is  clear,  that  he  understood  by  >^oyos  the  divine  Wisdo77i.  Hence  this  Greek 
word  is  equivalent  to  the  Latin  word  ratio.  Marius  Mercator,  wiiom  many 
follow  after,  (de  xii.  Anathematismo  Nestoriano,  in  his  0pp.  tom.  ii.  p.  128. 
edit.  Garnerii)  erroneously  says :  Verbum  Dei  Patris,  non  substantivum,  sed 
prolativum,  vel  imperativum,  sensit  Samosatenus.  But  Paul  did  not  recog- 
nize the  word  Trpoifcpmov  ( prolativum) :  and  by  the  word  \oyogy  he  intended 
the  Wisdom  or  the  Reason  of  God  ;  as  is  manifest  from  Epiphanius,  [p.  713.] 
A'ho,  it  must  be  confessed,  is  not  always  snlficiently  accurate ;  (Ilasres.  Ixv. 

p.  609.)  :  Ao^-ov  vof/.i^ov<ri  a-otpiav,  oiov  ev  4'^/CV  dvB'pdJirov  iKxa-TCi  e^ti  Koycv.  Vocant 
sapientiam,  qualem  quilibet  homo  in  anima  possidet  divinitus  acccptara. — 
V.  This  Reason  of  God  was  at  rcvst  in  him,  from  eternity,  and  did  not  project 
or  attempt  any  thing  exterior  to  God.  But  when  God  determined  to  create 
the  visible  universe,  this  Reason  in  a  sense  proceeded  out  from  God,  and  acted 


238  Century  III.— Section  85. 

exteriorly  to  G^d.  On  this  account,  in  the  scriptures,  it  is  metnphorically 
cnlled  the  Hon  of  God. — VI.  The  Hp\r\L  is  XXv.xi  fower^  which  God  possesses,  of 
producing  and  animating-  all  things,  at  his  pleasure.  It  first  received  the  name 
of  Spirit,  when  it  manifested  itself  in  the  creation  of  the  world;  and  it  is  so 
called,  because  it  may  be  compared  to  the  icind  or  the  breath,  which  produces 
motions  in  the  air.  When  it  excites  pious  emotions  in  ihe  souls  of  men,  it  is 
cnllc-d  the  hohj  Spirit. — VII.  And  therefore,  until  God  entered  on  the  creation 
of  the  world,  and  operated  externally,  there  was  neither  any  Son  of  God,  nor 
any  holy  Spirit.  And  yet  both  may,  in  a  certain  sense,  be  pronounced  clernaU 
because  they  eternally  existed  in  God. — VIII.  When  God  would  make  known 
to  men  a  way  of  salvation  superior  to  that  of  Moses,  he,  by  means  of  that  eter- 
nal pmcer  of  his,  which  gives  life  and  motion  to  all  things,  and  which  is  called 
the  holy  Spirit,  begat,  of  the  Jewish  virgin  Mary,  that  very  holy  and  most  per- 
fect man,  Jesus :  and  this  man,  because  he  was  begotten  by  the  power  of  God, 
without  any  intervening  agency,  is  also  called  the  Son  of  God;  just  as  a  house 
receives  Ihc  name  of  its  builder.  (See  Dionysius'  Epistle  to  Paul,  ubi  Supr. 
p.  274.) — IX.  This  extraordinary  W2a?2,  though  he  was  more  holy  and  more 
noble  than  any  other  mortal,  yet  lived  and  acted  in  the  way  and  manner  of 
othiM-  men,  and  was  subject  to  all  the  wants  and  frailties  which  are  incident  to 
our  nature.  And  all  the  things  which  he  either  did  or  suffered,  prove  clearly 
that  he  was  a  mere  man. — X.  But  to  enable  him  to  perform  the  functions  of  a 
diune  ambassador,  without  failure,  (for  as  a  man,  he  was  liable  to  errors  and 
defects.)  that  same  divine  Reason,  which  proceeded  forth  as  it  were  from  God 
at  the  time  the  world  was  created,  joined  itself  to  his  soul,  and  banished  from 
it  all  ignorance  on  religious  subjects  and  all  liability  to  failure. — At  what  timej 
in  the  opinion  of  Paul,  the  divine  Reason  or  Wisdom  became  associated  with 
the  soul  of  Christ,  I  do  not  find  stated.  I  can  suppose,  that  the  advent  of  the 
Reason  or  Word  of  God  to  the  man  Christ,  was  delayed  till  the  commencement 
of  his  public  functions.  Becau.se,  previously,  the  man  Christ  did  not  need  tho 
aid  of  this  eternal  Wi.sdom, — XI.  This  presence  of  the  divine  Wisdom,  (which 
is  nothing  different  from  God  himself,)  in  the  man  Christ,  makes  it  proper  that 
this  man  should  be,  and  he  is,  called  God.  Alhanasiiis,  (de  Synodis,  0pp.  torn. 
i.  P.  ii.  p.  739,)  :  Oi  and  UauKou  Tiii  ^auoaraTias  \iyovTaiy  'Kpi(rrdv  iic-rtpcv 
[p.    714.]    lUiTa     T«v      tvavd-puTTittrtv      tn      iTfiOKOTrn;     Ti^iOTroiii^d'aiy     tcj     t«v     ^uitdi 

^ixdv  avd-pwrrov  yfyovivat.  Pauli  Samosateni  discipuli  dicunt  Christum  post  in- 
carnationem  ex  profectu  (I  am  not  sure,  that  Monfaucon  here  gives  the  true 
import  of  the  Greek,  t»  ^/JixcTiff.)  Deum  factum  esse,  natura  vero  nu- 
dum hominem.  f  ictum  esse. — XII,  It  will  be  no  mistake,  then,  if  we  say,  there 
are  two  Sons  of  God ;  and  that  there  were  in  Christ  two  i/TcyTa^^wf,  or 
two  distinct  separately  existing  things,  two  forms  or  Trpiaob-m.. — XIII.  But  we 
must  be  careful  not  to  commingle  and  confound  the  acts  of  these  tvro  Sons  of 
God.  Each  acts  alone,  and  without  the  other.  The  dizine  Reason,  with  no 
cooperation  of  the  man,  speaks  by  Christ,  instructs,  discourses,  sways  the 
minds  of  the  auditors,  and  performs  the  miracles.  And  on  the  other  hand,  the 
man,  with  no  cooperation  of  the  divine  Reason  dwelling  in  him,  is  begotten,  is 
hui^ry,  sleeps,  walks,  suffers  pains,  and  dies. — XIV.  At  length,  when  the  man 


Doctrines  of  Paul  of  Samosata.  03c) 

Christ  had  fnlfillcd  his  mission,  the  divine  Reason  li-ft  the  man,  and  rt'turned  to 
God.  Epi}'ha7iius,  (Iltores.  Ixv.  J.  1.  p.  GU8.)  •  <^«3■}  riajJxof  E"x3-wv  0  xo^cc  tvx'p- 
),«j«  (UCKcs,  xui  dvvixd-e  Tr^of  rov  nar'ipj.  Tiiis  p:iss:ige  is  miserably  t^all^,l:ited 
by  Dion.  Pelavius,  (as  aro  many  ol her  pas>ages  in  Epiphanius.)  {\\u^:  ^od 
solum,  inquit  Paul  us.  advenicns  verbnni,  totum  illud  adminislravif,  et  nd  patiom 
revertit.  The  true  meaning  of  the  passage  is :  The  didne  Rcaaon  came  {io 
the  man  Christ,  long  after  his  blrlh,  and  when  in  mature  life,)  and  solelij  (witli- 
out  any  conimnnity  of  action  with  the  huniaa  nature,)  operated  in  Jii/n,  <ind 
afterivards  returned  to  God. 

I  am  aware,  that  learned  men  have  made  the  sys!em  of  PauZ  coincident  with 
the  commonly  received  doctrine  of  Nestorius  concerning  Christ.  And  it  is  easy 
to  fall  into  sucli  an  opinion,  if  we  take  the  words  ot  the  ancients  in  the  sense 
ordinarily  given  to  them.  And  indeed  there  is  some  aflinity  between  the  Nes- 
torian  and  the  Samosatean  views.  Nor  is  this  coincidence  a  recent  discovery; 
for  in  the  council  of  Ephesus,  in  the  fifth  century,  it  was  supposed  that  Paul 
prepared  the  way  for  Nestorius.  (Sec  Harduin's  Concilia,  ton),  i.  p.  1271.) 
And  in  the  sixth  century,  Simeon  Bethnrsamensis,  (in  Assemaii^a  Biblioth.  Client. 
Clement.  Vaticana,  torn.  i.  p.  347.)  tells  us:  Ex  Pa.ulo  Samosateno  orta  est 
ha^resis  duarum  naturarum  (or  rather,  personarum)  et  propriitatum,  opera- 
tionumque  earum.  Simeon  here  refers  to  the  Neslorian  heresy. — Yet  thcrb 
renlly  was  a  wide  difference  between  Nestorius  and  Paid.  The  former  admit 
ted  a  plurality  of  persons  in  God  ;  and  he  so  coupled  the  second  person  of  tfm 
divine  nature,  or  the  Son,  wiih  the  person  of  the  man  born  of  Mary,  that  ihe> 
continued  to  be  two  distinct  persons.  Neither  of  these  positions  was  admitteci 
by  Paul;  who  denied  any  distinction  of  persons  in  God,  and  supposed  that  the 
mere  reason  or  wisdojn  of  God,  was  temporarily  joined  with  the  man  Christ,  and 
on  this  account,  he  acknowledged  but  one  person  in  Christ. 

(3)  That  more  than  one  council  was  assembled  at  Antioch  hgainst  Paul  of 
Samosata,  is  certain,  from  Eusebius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  28,  p.  278  )  and  from 
others.  But  how  many  councils  were  held,  cannot  ca>ily  be  determined,  [p.  715.] 
That  the  last  was  held  in  269,  has  been  proved  by  Tillcmonf.  and  otiiers,  by 
arguments  of  the  most  satisfactory  natni'c.  (See  Tillcmoni.,  I\Iemoires  pour 
-  -  -  -  I'Histore  de  I'Eglise,  tome  iv.  p.  6J5.)  In  the  preceding  councils,  as 
Eusebius  says,  Dogmalis  sua)  novitatcm  oceultabat.  (See  aUo  Theodoret,  HaD- 
rel.  Fabul.  L.  ii.  p.  222,  223.)  Being  more  crafty  than  his  adversaries,  Paul 
deceived  the  bishops  with  his  ambiguous  terms,  so  that  they  thought  him  free 
from  error.  Tliis  might  easily  be  done,  as  may  be  inferred  from  what  has  been 
said  respecting  his  sentiments;  and  especially  before  men  who  were,'  indeed, 
well  disposed  in  regard  to  God  and  religion,  but,  as  is  quilc  evident,  were  with- 
out human  learning,  simple-hearted,  and  wholly  unacquainted  with  the  art  of 
disputation.  Paul,  as  we  have  seen,  expressed  his  oi)inions  in  the  very  words 
and  phrases  used  in  the  bible,  and  did  not  deny  that  Christ  is  Gcd,  and  the  So7i 
of  God,  and  that  in  God  we  must  distingui-^h  the  Father,  Son,  and  holy  Sj)irit: 
but  to  these  terms  he  affixed  a  different  meaning,  which  the  inexperienced  would 
not  perceive.  There  was  need,  therefore,  of  a  more  i)erspicacious  disputant, 
who  could  draw  the  man  out  of  his  hiding-places,  and  strip  him  of  his  disguises, 


240  Century  Ill—Section  35. 

by  queries,  interrogatories,  and  accurate  distinctions.  And  such  a  man  was 
at  length  found  in  Malchion,  then  a  presbyter  in  the  church  at  Antioch  ;  who 
had  once  been  a  teacher  of  eloquence,  and  had  presided  over  the  school  of  the 
Sophists  at  Antioch,  and,  therefore,  understood  well  all  the  artifices  by  which 
the  rhetoricians  of  that  age  managed  a  bad  cause.  This  man,  by  vanquishing 
Paul  in  argument,  is  a  tacit  witness  to  what  I  asserted,  that  the  other  persona 
engaged  in  this  controversy,  even  the  bishops,  were  men  deficient  in  learning 
and  talents,  and  inadequate  arbiters  in  such  subtle  controversies.  The  records 
of  this  discussion,  with  few  exceptions,  have  perished :  but  the  point  at  issue 
between  this  Samosatean  and  Malchion,  may  be  learned  from  Themloret ;  who 
tells  us,  (Hccret.  Fabul.  L.  ii.  c.  8,  0pp.  torn.  iv.  p.  223,)  that  Malchion  demon- 
strated :  That  Paul  considered  Christ  to  be  avd-pam-ov  d-iiag  :^d/!/Tos  J^iaztpovTus 
yi^iaufxivovy  hominem  insigniter  divind  gratid  ornatum.  By  artful  and  deceptive 
phraseology,  therefore,  Paul  had  endeavored  to  persuade  the  bishops,  and  per- 
haps had  actually  persuaded  some  of  them,  that  he  held  Christ  to  be  God ;  but 
Malchion,  by  his  eloquence  and  skill,  detected  those  artifices  by  which  the  good 
bishops  had  been  beguiled.  Paul  was  condemned  and  deposed,  by  the  suffrages 
of  the  bishops.  But,  as  Eusehius  informs  us,  (ubi  supr,  p.  282.)  he  refused  to 
vacate  (tou  tiis  iKJiK}t<riai  liKov)  the  house  of  the  church.  This  phraseology 
shows,  as  learned  men  have  remarked,  that  the  bishops  of  Antioch  resided  in  the 
same  house,  in  which  the  church  ordinarily  assembled.  And  Paul  not  only  con- 
tinued to  occupy  the  house,  but  also  to  perform  the  functions  of  a  bishop ;  as 
we  are  expressly  told  by  Theodoret,  (ubi  supr.  p.  223) :  T«v  t«s  enKXna-ias  Kitrli^n 
[p.  716.]  -i^yifjioviav.  Praefecturam  ecclesia3  dimittere  nolebat:  notwithstanding 
the  council  (as  Eusehius  informs  us)  had  appointed  Domnus  his  successor.  This 
however,  would  have  been  impossible,  if  the  people  of  Antioch  had  regarded 
the  decision  of  the  council  as  obligatory.  But,  undoubtedly,  the  majority  of  the 
people  chose  to  go  with  their  bishop,  rather  than  obey  the  council,  although  it 
was  very  large,  and  composed  (as  Eusehius  says)  ex  innumerahilihus  fere  epis- 
copis.  This  fact  is  confirmed  by  the  bishops  of  the  council  in  their  epistle, 
(apud  Eusehium,  ubi  supr.  p.  281.)  for  they  complain,  that  Paul  not  only  allowed 
Psalms  to  he  sung  in  honor  of  himself  in  the  church,  and  his  praises  to  he  cele- 
brated in  the  congregation,  (iv  rw  Xaw,)  but  that  he  was  also  present  in  those 
assemblies,  and  did  not  rebuke  persons  who  pronounced  him  to  be  aji  angel 
from  heaven,  come  among  men,  i.  e.  a  teacher  of  the  true  wisdom  which  is  from 
heaven.  The  christian  population  of  Antioch,  therefore,  or  at  least  a  large  por- 
tion of  them,  rejected  the  new  bishop  ;  and  remaining  in  communion  with  Paul, 
continued  to  resort  to  the  house  where  he  resided  for  the  purpose  of  worship, 
and  with  willing  ears  listened  to  his  praises  publicly  proclaimed  from  the  pul- 
pit. The  bishops,  in  their  Epistle,  express  their  great  displeasure  at  this  :  but 
when  I  consider  carefully  the  whole  case,  I  think  they  must  themselves  have 
caused  the  evil  in  part.  For  they  disregarded  the  rights  of  the  people,  in  the 
creation  of  a  new  bishop ;  and  they  do  not  conceal  the  fact,  that  they  alone,  with- 
out any  regard  to  the  judgment  and  authority  of  the  people,  placed  Domnus 
over  the  church  of  Antioch,  and  ordered  Paul  to  retire  from  his  post.  They  say: 
H'vat.5^xaff"3"))iMfV    trefov    dvT*    duTou    t«  Kst-'^oXixJi    iKKKixrict  xArAa-rtia-Ai.     NoS  cpis- 


Contests  with  Paul  of  Samosata.  211 

copi  coacti  fuimus  alium  ejus  loco  episcopura  ecclesias  cathollcae  pra?ponere. 
They  acted  alone  in  the  appointment;  for  they  make  no  mention  of  tiie 
people,  or  of  the  church.  And  therefore,  the  people  of  Antioch  stood  up  for 
their  rights,  and  denied  that  it  was  lawful  for  the  council,  without  their  know- 
ledge  or  consent,  to  undertake  so  great  a  matter,  and  substitute  another  man  in 
place  of  their  old  bishop.  And  this  shows  us,  how  Paw?,  though  condemned  by 
so  many  bishops,  was  able  for  three  years  to  hold  a  position,  of  which  he  had 
been  pronounced  unworthy.  The  people  favored  him :  and  if  they  had  deserted 
him,  the  affair  would  have  soon  terminated.  And  yet  I  do  not  consider  it  an 
idle  supposition  of  some,  that  queen  Zenobia,  the  patroness  of  Paul,  jiffbrded 
him  aid.  But  after  her  subjugation,  in  the  year  272,  the  case  was  carried  before 
the  emperor  Aurelian,  (who  had  not  then  become  hostile  to  the  christians  ;)  and 
he,  after  hearing  the  case,  decided,  (as  Eusebiits  tells  us):  Tovron  vlt/xAt  tov 

Mitov,     on    av    ll     KATa    T«v    iVaXfav   Jtat    riiV    Vcefxaioiv    Tfihiv    E^TTiTKOTrct    T6U    S'iy- 

/M*Tof  i-rivTixKouv.  lis  domum  tradi  debere,  quibus  Italici  Christianas  religi- 
onis  antistites  et  Romanus  episcopus  scriberent:  or,  that  the  building  should 
be  surrendered  to  those  ivhom  the  Italian  bishops  should  by  their  letter  approve. 
This  decision  of  the  emperor  deserves,  I  think,  a  more  careful  examination  than 
is  usually  given  it.  In  the  first  place,  the  emperor  pays  no  regard  to  the  decision 
of  the  council  against  Paul :  nor  does  he  order  his  ejectment  from  the  church,  as 
Theodoret,  and  after  him  many  others,  represent.  The  decision  was  not  [p.  717.] 
in  relation  to  Paul  and  Domnus ;  nor  was  the  question,  which  of  them  was  the 
true  and  lawful  bishop  of  the  church  at  Antioch:  but  the  subject  under  consi- 
deration was,  the  possession  of  the  house,  and  the  rights  of  the  parties  who  con- 
tended about  it  before  the  emperor's  tribunal.  Aurelian  must  have  pronounced 
a  very  different  sentence,  if  he  approved  the  decree  of  the  council,  and  decided 
that  Paul  was  justly  deprived  of  his  office.  It  appears  moreover,  from  this  deci- 
sion, that  there  were  two  parties  at  Antioch,  who  contended  for  the  house  of  the 
church  before  the  emperor.  For  the  decree  speaks  of  them  in  the  plural  num- 
ber, (tcwtok  ytifAAi^  K.  T.  K.)  If  the  Antiochians  had  been  agreed,  and  had 
united  in  a  petition  against  Paul  on  his  refusing  to  vacate  the  church,  undoubt- 
edly, Aurelian  would  have  decided  in  favor  of  the  people  against  that  single 
man :  and  he  would  not  have  referred  the  case  to  the  judgment  of  the  Italian 
bishops.  But  there  was  a  division  in  the  community  at  Antioch  :  no  small  part 
of  the  people — and  perhaps  also  many  of  the  neighboring  bishops,  (for  among 
them,  Paul  had  many  friends ;  as  the  Epistle  of  the  bishops,  preserved  by  Eu- 
sebius,  testifies,) — took  sides  with  Paul :  while  others  preferred  Domnus.  And 
both  these  parties  contended  for  the  possession  of  the  house.  Hence,  thirdly, 
the  emperor  being  in  doubt,  and,  from  his  ignorance  of  the  christian  religion, 
unable  to  determine  which  party  had  the  most  valid  claim,  without  pronouncing 
any  judgment,  he  committed  the  case  to  the  decision  of  foreign  and  disinterested 
bishops.  And  lastly,  having  learned  that  it  was  customary  with  the  christians 
to  submit  all  their  religious  controversies  to  the  determination  of  councils,  he 
thought  the  christian  rule  should  be  followed  in  this  case ;  and  therefore  ht 
directed  the  bishop  of  Rome  to  assemble  the  Italian  bishops,  to  hear  and  judge 
the  case ;  and  he  decreed  that  the  decision  of  such  a  council  should  bind  the 
VOL.  n.  17 


242  Century  III— Section  36. 

parties.    There  are  also,  as  I  apprehended,  some  implications  in  tliis  decree  of 
the  emperor,  wliich  throw  light  on  the  discipline  of  the  christians  in  that  age, 
and  show  us,  that  the  Li>hop  of  Rome  could  decide  nothing  by  himself,  in  the 
controversies  referred  to  him,  but  was  obliged  to  assemble  the  bishops  of  Italy 
in  a  council.    It  hence  appears  very  manifest,  unless  I  am  greatly  deceived,  that 
the  writers  on  ecclesiastical  affairs  w-holly  misrepresent  this  act  of  the  emperor, 
and  that  the  thing  should  be  understood  very  differently.  Fred.  Spanheim,  (in  his 
Instit.  Hist.  Eccl.  0pp.  tom.  I.  p.  751,)  says:  Quum  parere  nollet,  ac  aedibus 
episcopalibus  excedere  Paulus,  ab  ipso  Aureliano  imperatore  coercendus  fuit.  In 
the  same  manner  many  others :  and  all  of  them  wrong.  Some  tell  us,  more  dis- 
tinctly, that  the  whole  congregation  of  Antioch  went  before  the  emperor,  and 
besought  him  to  expel  the  degenerate  bishop  whom  the  council  had  condemned 
from  the  house  of  the  church ;  and  that  the  emperor  consented  : — which  is  no 
nearer  the  truth.     The  fact  was  this.     There  were  two  parties  at  Antioch,  the 
one  adhered  to  Paul,  and  the  other  regarded  Domnus  as  the  true  bishop;  and 
[p.  718.]  they  litigated  before  the  emperor,  respecting  the  house  of  the  church, 
and  not — be  it  carefully  noted — respecting  the  bishop.    And  this  was  wise.     If 
they  had  carried  their  contest  about  the  bishop  before  the  emperor,  they  w^ould 
have  exposed  to  its  enemies  those  evils  in  the  church,  which  should  be  kept 
from  public  view;  and  they  would  undoubtedly  have  increased  the  odium  under 
which  they  already  lay.    Besides,  the  question  respecting  the  bishop,  being  a 
religious  one,  they  considered  it  as  not  pertaining  to  the  emperor's  jurisdiction. 
But  the  controversy  concerning  the  house,  was  purely  of  a  civil  nature,  and  • 
therefore  could  be  carried  into  the  forum.  Aurelian  did  not  venture  to  adjudge 
the  house  in  question  to  either  of  the  litigating  parties.    For  the  Roman  laws, 
as  is  manifest,  could  not  be  applied  to  the  case.    The  emperor,  therefore,  per- 
mitted it  to  be  tried  by  the  christian  ecclesiastical  laws,  and  appointed  for  judges 
the  bishop  of  Rome  with  the  other  bishops  of  Italy;  because  the  oriental 
bishops,  having  sympathy  with  the  parties,  could  not  be  safely  trusted  to  decide 
the  case.     Such  being  the  facts,  I  cannot  agree  with  them  who  can  see,  in  this 
transaction,  evidence  of  the  emperor's  good  will  towards  the  christians.     For 
nothing  can  be  inferred  from  this  decree  of  his,  except  that  he  would  not  at  that 
time  have  the  christians  molested ;  and  this,  probably,  for  what  we  should  call 
political  reasons,  or  from  motives  of  state  polic3^    Neither  can  I  accord  with 
those,  who  suspect  that  Aurelian  was  influenced  by  hatred  to  Zenobia,  whom  he 
knew  to  be  friendly  to  Paul ;  and  that  therefore  he  decided  the  case  against 
him.     For  there  was  no  controversy  respecting  Paul,  before  the  emperor ;  nor 
is  there  any  indication  of  ill-will  towards  him,  in  the  edict  of  Aurelian. 

§  XXXYI.  The  Arabians  reclaimed  by  Origen.  Seduced  also 
by  philosophy,  be3^ond  a  doubt, were  those  Arabian  followers  of 
an  unknown  leader,  who  supposed  the  soul  of  man  to  die  luith  the 
body;  and  that  it  would  hereafter,  along  with  the  body,  be  restored 
by  God  to  life.  As  the  parent  of  this  sect  is  unknown,  they  are  de- 
nominated Arabians,  from  the  country  they  inhabited.    The  distur- 


Benejicial  Effects  of  PlL'dosophy.  243 

bances  produced  by  this  sect  in  Arabia,  under  the  emperor 
Philip^  were  quieted  by  Origen;  who,  being  sent  for,  discussed 
the  subject  with  so  much  eloquence,  in  a  pretty  numerous  coun- 
cil, called  for  the  purpose,  that  the  friends  of  the  error  gave  up 
their  opinion.(^) 

(1)  All  that  we  know  of  this  sect, — which  is  very  little, — is  to  be  found  in 
Eusehius,  (Hist.  Eccl.  L.  vi.  c.  37.  p.  233).  Those  adhering  to  it,  believed — I. 
That  the  soul  is  only  the  vilal  power,  pertaining  to,  and  moving  the  human 
body. — II.  Hence  they  concluded,  that  when  the  body  dies,  the  soul  also  be- 
comes extinct;  as  Eusehius  says:  (ruvctTrob-Vrta-niiv  roi;  o-co/uati  Kui  <ruvJ'tapd-iipi(r^-ai. 
This  language  can  have  no  other  meaning  than  that  above  expressed.  Those, 
therefore,  are  not  to  be  regarded,  who  make  tiiis  sect  agree  with  the  [p.  719.] 
so-called  Psj/chopannychians ;  or,  with  those  that  believe  human  souls  to  be,  in- 
deed, distinct  essences  from  the  body,  and  that  they  continue  to  live  or  exist 
when  the  body  dies,  but  that  they  are  destitute  of  consciousness  and  per- 
ception, and,  as  it  were,  sleep,  when  separate  from  the  body.  For  those  Arabians 
supposed  the  soul,  not  only  to  die  with  the  body,  but  also  to  become  exlinct. 
They,  therefore,  must  have  held  the  soul  to  be  a  constituent  part  of  the  body. — 
The  author  of  this  sect,  I  can  suppose,  was  an  Epicurean  before  he  became  a 
Christian.  For  there  were,  undoubtedly,  in  that  age,  adherents  to  the  philoso- 
phy of  Epicurus,  both  in  Syria  and  Arabia.  When  he  became  a  Christian,  he 
attempted  to  combine  with  Christianity  his  philosophy  respecting  the  soul ;  or 
rather,  he  would  modify  Christianity  by  his  philosophy. — III.  He  therefore 
taught  his  followers  to  believe,  that  God  will  hereafter  recall  to  life  the  whole 
man,  or  will  restore  to  the  body  that  vital  power  which  it  lost  at  death. 

§   XXXVII.      Benefits   to    Christianity   from    Philosophy.      Yet, 

it  must  not  be  denied  that  Christianity  received  some  ad- 
vantages from  this  disposition  to  elucidate  theology  by  means  ot 
philosophy.  For,  in  the  first  place,  certain  doctrines,  which  had 
before  been  taught  indistinctly  and  ambiguously,  assumed  a  bet- 
ter form,  and  were  better  explained  in  the  discussions  with  those 
who  brought  philosophy  into  the  church.  In  the  next  place,  the 
growth  and  progress  of  the  Gnostic  sects  were  more  forcibly 
and  more  successfully  resisted  than  before,  by  such  as  brought  in 
the  aids  of  reason.  For  if  the  philosophical  light,  which  shone  in 
Origen  and  others,  was  not  great,  yet  it  was  sufficient  to  dissipate, 
and  entirely  to  overthrow  the  absurd  fictions  of  these  sects.  And 
therefore,  from  the  time  when  Christians  began  to  cultivate  philo- 
sophical knowledge,  the  Gnostics  were  unable  to  entice  so  many 
from  the  Catholic  ranks  into  their  camp,  and  to  found  so  many 


244  Centimj  Ill—Section  38. 

new  associations,  as  in  tlie  preceding  century,  wlien  they  Avere 
assailed  only  with  scriptural  arguments.(')  Lastly^  this  light  of 
human  wisdom,  though  deceptive  and  dim,  which  some  doctors 
wished  to  unite  with  the  light  of  revelation,  was  useful  in  chasing 
from  the  church  some  opinions  which  the  Christians  had  re- 
ceived from  the  Jewish  schools,  but  which  were  thought  by  many 
to  be  of  a  holy  and  divine  origin. 

(1)  Those  who  combated  the  Gnostics  with  scriptural  arguments,  were  in 
general  poor  interpreters  of  the  Bible,  as  we  may  see  by  Irenccus,  and  they 
[p.  720.]  delighted  more  in  allegories,  than  in  the  proper  sense  of  scripture.  And 
the  Gnostics  opposed  allegories  to  allegories;  for  the  greater  part  of  them 
hunted  immoderately  after  mysteries  and  recondite  senses  in  the  sacred  books. 
But  which  party  expounded  scripture  most  correctly,  it  is  hard  to  say,  as  neither 
of  them  adopted  any  fixed  rules,  but  merely  followed  their  fancy.  Besides,  the 
Gnostics  had  many  other  modes  of  evasion,  so  long  as  they  were  assailed  only 
on  scriptural  grounds. 

§  XXXYIII.  Chiiiasm  vanquished.  Among  the  Jewish  opinions, 
to  which,  in  this  age,  Philosophy  proved  detrimental,  the  most 
distinguished  was  that  of  the  reign  of  Christ  on  earth,  a  thousand 
years,  with  the  saints  restored  to  their  bodies.  This  opinion,  I 
believe,  was  introduced  into  the  church  near  the  commencement 
of  the  Christian  commonwealth.  And  down  to  the  times  of  Ori- 
gen,  all  the  teachers  who  were  so  disposed,  openly  professed  and 
taught  it ;  although  there  were  some  who  either  denied  it,  or  at 
least  called  it  in  question.  But  Origen  assailed  it  fiercely ;  for  it 
was  repugnant  to  his  philosophy :  and,  by  the  system  of  biblical 
interpretation  which  he  discovered,  he  gave  a  different  turn  to 
those  texts  of  scripture  on  which  the  patrons  of  this  doctrine 
most  relied.  The  consequence  was,  that  this  error  lost  its  influ- 
ence with  most  Christians.  But,  a  little  past  the  middle  of  this 
century,  Nepos,  an  Egyptian  bishop,  endeavored  to  revive  it  and 
give  it  currency,  by  an  appropriate  treatise,  which  he  called  a 
Confutatio  Allegoristamm.  This  book  was  admired  by  many  in 
the  district  of  Arsinoe,  and  was  thought  to  confirm  the  visible 
reign  of  Christ  on  earth,  by  the  most  solid  arguments.  Hence 
great  commotions  arose  in  that  part  of  Egypt,  and  many  congTe- 
gations  gladly  resumed  their  expectation  of  the  future  millennium. 
But  these  commotions  were  quieted  by  Dionysius^  the  bishop  of 
Alexandria,  a  pupil  of  Origen^  and  inheriting  his  preceptor's  learn- 


Chiliasm    Vanquished.  245 

ing,  as  well  as  his  mildness  of  disposition.  In  the  first  place, 
he  held  a  discussion  with  one  Coracion^  the  head  and  leader  of 
the  controversy,  and  with  his  followers ;  in  which,  by  his  admo- 
nitions, arguments,  and  exhortations,  he  induced  them  to  give  up 
the  opinion  tliey  had  derived  from  the  treatise  of  Nepos:  and 
afterwards,  to  stop  up  the  fountain  of  the  evil,  he  wrote  a  confu- 
tation of  Nepos^  in  two  books,  entitled  de  Promissionihus  divinis. 
In  the  second  book  of  this  work  he  very  discreetly  treated  par- 
ticularly on  the  authority  of  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John ;  from 
which  Kepos  had  derived  the  chief  support  of  his  opinion.(') 

(1)  The  controversy  respecting  the  reign  of  Christ  on  the  earth,  which  [p.  721.] 
originated  from  tiie  book  of  the  Egyptian  bishop,  Nepos,  against  those  he  called 
Allegorists, — all  the  writers  on  ecclesiastical  history,  narrate  to  us  from  Euse- 
bins,  (Hist.  Eccl.  L.  vii.  c.  24,  &c.  p.  271,  &c.)  and  from  Gennadius  of  Mar- 
seilles, (de  Dogmat.  Eccles.  cap.  Iv.  p.  32.)  for  these  are  the  only  fathers,  who 
make  formal  mention  of  it.  Nor  is  there  any  great  deficiency  in  their  account, 
so  far  as  the  controversy  itself  is  concerned,  and  aside  from  the  causes  which 
produced  it :  and  yet  their  statements  appear  to  me  rather  jejune,  and  do  not 
embrace  every  thing  important  to  a  correct  understanding  of  the  controversy. 
I  will  therefore  add  some  things,  wliich  I  deem  worthy  of  being  known. — The 
doctrine  of  a  future  reign  of  Christ  on  the  earth,  a  thousand  years,  with  the 
saints,  was  undoubtedly  of  Jeivish  origin  ;  and  it  was  brought  into  the  church, 
along  with  other  Jewish  notions,  by  those  Jews  who  embraced  Christianity. 
All  Jews  have  not  held  one  opinion,  as  to  the  termination  of  the  Messiah's 
reign  ;  and  yet  many  among  them,  even  at  the  present  day,  limit  it  to  a  thou- 
sand years.  Among  both  the  ancients  and  the  moderns,  many  have  supposed, 
that  Cerinlhus  first  propagated  this  error  among  the  Christians.  Few,  however, 
will  readily  agree  with  them,  if  they  consider,  that  this  sentiment  was  embraced 
by  many, — e.  g.  Irenaeus,  TertuUian,  and  others, — who  abhorred  Cerinthus,  and 
accounted  him  a  pest  to  Christianity,  Nor  do  I  think  Eusebius  is  to  be  trusted, 
when  he  tells  us,  (Hist,  Eccl.  L.  iii.  c.  39.  p.  112.)  that  the  expectation  of  a 
millennium,  flowed  down  to  the  subsequent  doctors,  from  Papias,  a  bisiiop  of 
Jerusalem  in  the  second  century.  For,  as  Papias  was  not  the  first  excogitator 
of  the  opinion,  but  received  it  from  others,  as  Eusebius  himself  concedes,  it  is 
elear,  that  at  least  some  Christians  before  Papias,  had  embraced  this  opinion  ; 
and  therefore,  those  after  him  who  received  it,  may  have  learned  it  from  those 
who  lived  before  him.  And  Irenccus  (contra  Hrereses  L.  v,  c,  33,  p,  333.)  cites 
Papias,  not  as  being  the  author  of  tliis  opinion,  but  as  bearing  his  testimony  to 
it.  It  is  most  probable,  that  several  of  tlie  Jewish  Christians,  to  produce  some 
agreement  between  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  an  earthly  kingdom  of  the  Messiah, 
and  the  christian  doctrine  of  our  Saviour's  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  to  combine 
the  Jewish  expectation  with  that  of  Christians, — conceived  in  their  minds,  and 
also  taught,  that  there  is  a  twofold  kingdom  of  Christ,  and  a  twofold  expecta- 
tion of  his  disciples :  and  many  of  the  christian  teachers  either  a])proved  this 


246  Century  IIL—Section  38. 

device,  or  tolerntcd  it,  as  thc}'  did  many  otliers,  in  order  to  focilitate  the  transi- 
tion of  Jews  to  the  christian  community.  We  know,  how  much  inclined  men 
are  to  combine  the  ideas  they  have  received  from  their  ancestors,  with  those 
which  they  are  compelled  by  evidence  to  admit ;  nor  are  we  ignorant  how 
much  was  conceded,  in  the  first  ages  of  the  church,  to  the  weakness  of  the  Jews. 
But,  however  this  may  be,  it  is  certain  that  in  the  second  century,  the  opinion 
that  Christ  would  reign  a  thousand  years  on  the  earth,  was  diffused  over  a  great 
[p.  722.]  part  of  Christendom  ;  and  that  the  most  eminent  doctors  favored  it ; 
and  no  controversy  with  them  was  moved  by  those  who  thought  otherwise. 
Terlullian  (contra  Marcionem,  L.  iii.  c.  24.  p.  299.  edit.  Rigalt.)  speaks  of  it  as 
the  common  doctrine  of  the  whole  church.  He  says  :  Confitemur,  (Mark  ;  he 
speaks  without  limitation  ;  not  a  particle,  to  intimate  that  the  sect  of  the  Mon- 
tanists,  to  which  he  belonged,  differed  from  other  christians  on  this  subject,) — 
confitemur,  in  terra  nobis  regnum  repromissum,  sed  ante  coelum,  sed  alio  statu 
(Then  inserting  some  remarks  on  the  nature  of  this  kingdom,  he  proceeds :) 
Ha3C  ratio  regni  terreni,  post  cujus  mille  annos,  intra  quam  aetatem  concludi- 
tur  sanctorum  resurrectio,  et  qua)  sequuntur. — As  we  learn  from  Jerome,  (Catal. 
Scriptor.  Eccl.  c.  IS.)  and  from  the  passage  of  Tertullian  just  quoted,  Terlullian 
had  written  a  book  expressly  on  the  subject,  entitled  de  Spe  Fidelium  :  but  the 
book  is  lost.  He  errs,  however,  in  attributing  to  the  wliole  church,  an  opinion 
which  was  held  only  by  a  large  part  of  it.  Yet  this  is  certain,  from  Justin 
Martyr,  (Dial,  cum  Tryph.  p.  243.  247.  edit.  Jebbii,)  and  others,  that  very 
many,  and  they  men  of  great  influence,  thought  as  he  did  ;  nor  were  they,  on 
that  account,  taxed  with  corrupt  doctrine.  One  Caius,  indeed,  a  Roman  pres- 
byter,  in  a  dispute  with  Proclus,  (as  we  learn  from  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  L.  iii. 
c.  28.  p.  100.)  criminates  Cerinthus,  for  holding  out  the  expectation  of  a  terres- 
trial kingdom  of  Christ,  abounding  in  all  sorts  of  pleasures ;  but  his  phraseology 
puts  it  beyond  controversy,  that  he  censured,  not  so  much  that  reign  of  Christ, 
as  the  corporeal  pleasures  in  it  which  he  supposed,  truly  or  falsely,  Cerinthus 
had  promised.  For  there  were,  in  that  age,  two  opinions  respecting  this  kingdom 
of  Christ.  Some  supposed,  that  in  it  holy  men  would  live  in  the  same  manner 
as  men  now  do,  and  would  freely  indulge  in  all  the  pleasures  w-hich  can  be  de- 
rived fro!n  the  senses.  Others,  although  they  did  not  exclude  all  the  sensual 
delights  from  that  new  kingdom  of  Christ,  (which,  for  various  reasons,  was  im- 
possible,) yet  they  supposed  its  chief  happiness  to  consist  in  the  joys  and  plea- 
sures of  the  mind.  Says  Tertullian,  (in  the  passage  before  cited,  p.  499.) : 
Hanc  novara  civitatem  dicimus  excipiendis  resurrectione  Sanctis  et  refovendis 
omnium  bonorum  utique  spiritualium  copid  in  corapen.sationem  eorum,  qua;  in 
saeculo  vel  despeximus,  vel  amisimus,  a  Deo  prospectam.  Si  quidem  et  justum 
et  Deo  dignum,  illic  qnoque  exultaro  faniulos  ejus,  ubi  sunt  et  atllieti  in  nomine 
ipsius.  Whoever  reads  this  passage  carefully,  will  clearly  perceive,  that  the 
patrons  of  this  opinion  expected  sensual  enjoyments  in  that  kingdom  of  Christ; 
for  it  says,  Tlie  saints  will  be  refreshed,  in  compensation  for  the  pleasures,  which 
in  their  former  life  they  renounced  for  Christ's  sake.  But  from  these  pleasures 
they  excluded  all  lusts,  and  promised  a  higher  delight  in  spiritual  things. 
[p.  723.]     Those  who  were  addicted  to  the  former  opinion,  were  again  divided 


CJiUiasiii    Vanquished.  247 

into  two  classes,  as  we  shall  soon  see  ;  but  both  were  eonsiilercd  as  doing  a 
great  injury  to  Christ,  and  to  the  promises  lie  has  left  us.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  followers  of  the  latter  and  more  moderate  opinion,  were  supposed  to  hold 
iiothintj  very  unbeeoming  in  a  Christian,  and  were  accounted  as  brethren. 

But  in  the  third  century,  the  reputation  of  this  more  modernte  doctrine  declined ; 
and  first  in  Egypt,  through  the  influence  especially  of  Orlgcii ;  and  afterwards 
in  the  other  portions  of  the  christian  world,  in  which  the  opinions  of  Origcn 
gradually  acquired  a  high  reputation.  And  yet  it  could  not  be  exterminated  in 
a  moment;  it  still  had,  here  and  there,  some  respectable  advocates.  Origcn^ 
in  various  passages  of  his  works  still  extant,  censures  and  rebukes,  vehemently, 
those  who  anticipated  an  earthly  kingdom  of  Christ,  and  sensual  pleasures  in 
it.  And  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  the  second  Book  of  his  work  de  Principiis, 
(0pp.  tom.  i.  p.  104,  &-c.)he  assails  them  expressly,  both  with  philosophical 
arguments,  and  the  exegetical  principles  wiilch  he  had  adopted.  In  this  cluipter, 
which  is  entitled  Of  the  Promises,  although  he  appears  to  assail  only  those 
patrons  of  a  millennial  kingdom,  who  promised  themselves  in  it  nuptials,  festivi- 
ties, offices,  honors,  palaces,  &:.c.  or,  to  use  his  own  language,  Secundum  vitse 
hujus  conversationem  per  omnia  similia  fore  putabant  omnra  quas  de  repromis- 
sionibus  expectantnr,  id  est,  ut  iterum  sit  hoc,  quod  est ;  yet,  by  opposing  his 
own  doctrine  concerning  the  divine  Promises  to  theirs,  he  refutes  also  those 
who  expressed  themselves  more  refinedly  and  wisely,  respecting  the  joys  and 
felicities  of  this  kingdom.  For  he  utterly  deprives  souls,  separated  from  the 
body,  of  all  hope  of  receiving  pleasure  from  the  senses;  destroys  all  expectation 
of  any  kingdom,  to  be  established  by  Christ  on  this  earth ;  and  maintains,  that 
God  has  promised  nothing  to  souls,  except  an  increase  of  knowledge,  both 
natural  and  revealed.  In  this  discussion,  there  are  some  things  of  which  even 
modern  philosophers  need  not  be  ashamed.  For  he  infers  from  the  boundless 
desire  of  knowledge  natural  to  the  mind,  that  God  will  satisfy  that  desire :  and 
therefore,  that  the  soul,  if  duly  prepared  in  this  life,  and  purified  from  its  de- 
filements, will,  after  its  retirement  from  the  body,  mount  on  high,  rove  among 
the  celestial  orbs,  discern  clearly  and  manifestly,  things  which  it  only  knew 
obscurely,  while  it  resided  in  the  body  and  was  clogged  by  the  senses,  and  will 
also  comprehend  the  grounds  and  reasons  of  all  the  divine  plans  and  opera- 
tions.— But  I  am  diverging  from  my  subject. — Origen  was  more  decidedly  op- 
posed to  this  doctrine  of  an  earthly  kingdom  of  Christ,  affording  pleasures, 
than  others  were,  partly  in  consequence  of  the  philosophy  he  embraced,  and 
partly  by  the  system  of  biblical  interpretation  which  he  exclusively  approved. 
Agreeably  to  the  system  of  philosophy  which  he  adopted,  human  bodies  are  the 
penitentiaries  of  souls,  which  are  doing  penance  for  the  sins  they  com-  [p.  724.] 
mitted  in  a  former  life  ;  the  senses,  and  the  use  of  the  senses  by  the  soul,  are 
a  great  impediment  to  the  celestial  and  rational  soul ;  they  prevent  it  from  dis- 
cerning and  fully  knowing  the  truth  ;  sensitive  pleasures  and  delights,  even 
such  as  are  lawful,  allure  to  evil  and  poison  the  soul  ;  the  man,  therefore,  who 
is  desirous  of  salvation,  should  withdraw  his  attention  from  the  senses  and  from 
pleasures,  and  should  nourish  his  soul  with  the  contemj)lation  of  .things  alto- 
gether foreign   from  the  senses ;  the  comforts  and  conveniences  of  life  should 


248  Century  Ill.—Section  38. 

be  avoided ;  and  the  body  should  be  treated  with  rigor,  and  be  divested  of  its 
natural  energies.  A  man  imbued  with  such  sentiments,  could  by  no  means 
believe,  that  Christ  will  set  up  a  kingdom  on  earth,  in  which  his  friends,  clothed 
with  new  bodies,  will  enjoy  the  pleasures  of  sense.  On  the  other  hand,  Origen 
was  obliged  to  modify  and  debase  the  christian  doctrine  of  the  future  resurrec- 
tion of  our  bodies  and  of  the  reunion  of  our  souls  to  them,  so  that  it  should 
contain  nothing  opposed  to  his  opinion  of  the  nature  of  a  rational  soul :  and 
that  he  did  so,  is  very  well  known. — And  then,  how  much  the  method  of  in- 
terpreting the  bible,  which  he  prescribed,  might  dissuade  him  from  admitting 
this  millennial  kingdom,  the  copious  remarks  already  made  upon  it,  will  mnke 
manifest.  For  he  wished  to  have  the  literal  and  obvious  sense  of  the  words  dis- 
regarded, and  an  arcane  sense,  lying  concealed  in  the  invelop  of  the  words,  to 
be  sought  for.  But  the  advocates  of  an  earthly  kingdom  of  Christ,  rested  their 
cause  solely  on  the  natural  and  proper  sense  of  certain  expressions  in  the  bible; 
e.  g.  Matth.  v.  6.  and  xxvi.  29.  Luke  xix.  17.  and  other  similar  passages,  named 
by  Irenccus  and  Origen.  His  mind,  therefore,  could  not  help  revolting  fron* 
their  opinion ;  and  he  accounted  it  a  great  reproach  to  them,  that  they  neglect- 
ed what  he  considered  the  marrow  of  the  sacred  books,  and  dwelt  only  upon 
their  exterior.  He  says,  (de  Principiis,  L.  ii.  c.  11.  §  2.  p.  104.):  Quidam  la- 
borem  quodammodo  intelligentia3  recusantes,  et  superficiem  quandam  legis 
literse  consectantes  -  -  Apostoli  Pauli  de  resurrectione  corporis  spiritali  (Mark 
this  language,)  sententiam  non  sequentes.  And  having  expatiated  much  on 
tliis  censure,  he  closes  with  the  following  sentence  :  Hoc  ita  sentiunt,  qui  Chris- 
to  quidem  credentes,  Judaico  autem  quodam  sensu  scripturas  divinas  intelli- 
gentes,  nihil  ex  his  dignum  divinis  pollicitationibiis  prsesumpserunt.  See  also> 
what  he  snys  in  his  xviith  tome  on  Matth.  (0pp.  torn.  iii.  p.  826.  &.c.  of  the  new 
edit.)  where  he  reckons  it  a  great  excellence  of  TropoUogy,  (such  is  his  term 
for  the  allegorical  mode  of  interpretation,)  that  the  defenders  of  a  millennial 
kingdom  cannot  be  confuted  in  any  other  manner.  In  the  Prologue  to  his 
Commentary  on  the  Canticles,  (0pp.  torn.  iii.  p.  28.)  he  promises  a  formal  dis- 
cussion, in  another  place,  with  such  as  anticipate  sensual  pleasures  in  a  kingdom 
[p.  725.]  of  Christ :  and  perhaps  he  fulfilled  his  promise.  Simpliciores  quidam 
nescientes  distinguere  ac  secernerc,  qute  sint  qua3  in  scripturis  divinis  interior! 
homini,  quai  vero  exteriori  deputanda  sint,  vocabulorum  similitudinis  falsi  ad 
ineptas  quasdam  fabulas  et  figmenta  inania  se  contulerint :  ut  etiam  post  resur- 
rectionem  cibis  corporalibus  utendum  crederent.  -  -  Sed  de  his  alias  videbimus. 
This  bitter  and  censorious  language  shows,  how  odious  this  sect  was  to  Origen. 
The  opinion  which  Origen  resisted  with  so  much  resolution,  Nepos,  a  bishop 
of  some  unascertained  city  in  Egypt,  endeavored  to  restore  to  its  former  credit, 
by  a  work  written  in  defence  of  it,  which  he  intitled  cKty^ov  Axxnyopta-rwi 
?.6ycvy  Covfutalionem  Allegorislarum.  The  opposers  of  this  kingdom  of  Christ, 
he  called  Allegorists ;  because  they  maintained  that  the  texts  of  scripture,  on 
Wiiich  the  friends  of  the  doctrine  rested  its  defence,  were  allegories  or  mere  me- 
taphors. This  appellation  seems  to  have  been  given  them  in  contempt  by  their 
antagonists,  as  early  as  the  times  of  Irenccus.  See  his  work  (contra.  Haeres.  L. 
V.  c.  35,  p.  335.)    Yet  I  can  scarcely  doubt,  that  Nepos  had  especially  before  his 


ChiUasm    Vanquished.  249 

mind  Ongcn  and  liis  disciples;  who  were  spoken  atrainst  by  raany  on  account 
of  their  excessive  love  of  allegories,  and  who,  by  their  principles  of  interpreta- 
tion, pressed  very  hard  upon  the  friends  of  a  millennial  kingdom.  But  Nepos 
was  not  one  of  those  extravagant  ChUiasis,  of  whom  Cerinthus  is  said  to  linve 
been  the  leader,  and  who  taught  that  all  kinds  of  corporeal  pleasures  are  to  be 
expected  in  the  approaching  kingdom  of  Christ:  but  he  agreed  with  the  other 
and  more  moderate  class,  who,  although  they  did  not  exclude  all  sensual  plea- 
sures from  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  yet  circumscribed  them  within  very  narrow 
limits.  For  this  we  have  the  testimony  of  Gennadius  of  Marseilles ;  (de  Eccles. 
Dogmatibus,  cap.  Iv.  p.  32,)  who,  while  he  leaves  the  doctrine  of  Nepos  in  much 
obscurity,  yet  says  enough  to  show,  that  Nepos  did  not  belong  to  the  company 
of  the  Cerinthians.  And  his  antagonist  Dionysius,  makes  him  to  have  been  an 
estimable  man,  and  among  other  commendable  acts,  ascribes  to  him  the  compo- 
sition  of  very  beautiful  hymns.  Gennadius  says :  In  divinis  promissionibus, 
nihil  terrenura  vel  transitorium  expectemus,  sicut  Melitani  sperant.  Non  nuptia- 
rum  copulam,  sicut  Cerinthus  et  Marcion  delirant.  Non  quod  ad  cibum  vel  ad 
potum  pertinet,  sicut  Papia  auctore,  Irenceus  et  Tertullianus  et  Lactantius  acqui- 
escunt.  Neque  post  mille  annos  (I  suspect  here  is  a  corrupt  reading,  and  that 
the  word  post  before  mille,  should  be  omitted.  For  Nepos  did  not  teach  that 
Christ's  kingdom  was  to  commence  after  a  thousand  years,  but  that  it  was  to 
continue  a  thousand  years)  post  resurrectionem  regnum  Christi  in  terra  futurum, 
et  sanctos  cum  illo  in  deliciis  regnaturos  speremus,  sicut  Nepos  doeuit,  qui  pri- 
mam  justorum  resurrectionem  et  secundam  impiorum  confinxit.  This  passage 
is  well  framed  for  discriminating  the  various  sects  of  the  so  called  Millenarians 
of  the  early  ages.  For  Gennadius  enumerates  four  opinions  among  [p.  726.] 
them.  T\\e  first  is  that  of  the  Melitani,  which  is  here  obscurely  stated,  and,  so 
far  as  I  know,  is  not  explained  by  any  of  the  ancients.  The  second  is  that  of 
Cerinthus  and  Marcion,  who  promised  men  pleasures  of  every  kind,  and  especi- 
ally those  arising  from  the  conjunction  of  the  sexes,  and  therefore  allowed  a 
place  for  nuptials  in  the  new  Jerusalem.  The  third  class  was  a  little  more  de- 
cent. It  included  Papias,  Irenccus,  and  others.  These  were  indeed  ashamed  to 
admit  of  marriages  in  that  kingdom ;  yet  they  did  not  hesitate  to  allow,  that  its 
citizens  would  enjoy  the  pleasures  of  eating  and  drinking.  But  the  food  ad- 
mitted by  them,  was  not  to  be  like  ours,  gross,  oppressive,  and  hard  of  diges- 
tion, but  of  a  higher  character,  more  excellent,  and  more  subtile.  Hence,  it 
appears  also,  that  the  bodies  they  assigned  to  the  just  when  recalled  to  life, 
would  be  more  excellent,  more  sprightly,  and  more  etherial  than  ours.  The 
fourth  opinion  was  that  of  Nepos,  who  taught  in  general,  that  the  saints  will  reign 
in  delights.  The  nature  of  these  delights  Gennadius  does  not  explain.  But  as 
he  distinctly  represents  Nepos  as  differing  from  all  those  before  named,  it  is 
clear,  that  he  did  not  include  connubial  pleasures,  nor  those  of  feasting  and 
carousing,  among  the  delights  of  the  citizens  of  Christ.  He  doubtless  conceded 
to  them  very  splendid,  convenient,  and  agreeable  mansions,  serene  and  ])Ieasant 
skit's,  the  delights  of  the  eye,  the  ear,  the  smell,  and  perhaps  also  some  new  and 
etherial  kind  of  aliment,  suitable  for  bodies  entirely  dlirerent  from  ours  and  pos- 
sessing almost  the  nature  of  spirits.     But  the  greatest  part  of  their  happiness 


250  Centimj  III. —Section  33. 

was  to  consist  in  niontal  pleasures,  in  continual  intercourse  with  perfectly  holy 
minds,  in  tiie  contemplation  of  the  providence  and  works  of  God,  in  their  daily 
advance  in  the  knowledge  of  divine  and  human  things,  in  the  exercise  of  t!ie 
purest  love,  and  in  the  joy  arising  from  an  increase  of  knowledge  and  intelli- 
gence.— The  book,  in  which  Nefos  set  forth  his  opinions,  was  admired  especially 
by  one  Coracioriy  a  presbyter  doubtless  in  the  province  of  Arsinoe,  and  also  by 
many  other  citizens  of  that  province.  I  suppose  it  was  WTitten  in  an  eloquent 
and  pleasing  style,  and  on  that  account,  more  than  from  the  force  of  its  reason- 
ing, it  charmed  the  minds  of  the  incautious.  For  as  Dionysius  (cited  by  Euse- 
bius)  tells  us,  Ntpos  was  an  elegant  poet,  and  had  composed  very  beautiful 
hymns,  which  were  sung  in  all  the  churches  of  Egypt.  And  I  therefore  iiave 
no  doubt,  his  work  was  written  in  a  tlowery  style,  such  as  poets  usually  adopt. 
That  Cnracion  was  a  presbyter  of  some  village  in  the  province  of  Arsinoe.  ^ippears 
to  me  evident  from  the  language  used  by  Dionysius  (in  Eusebius  p.  272.)  For 
he  says,  that  when  he  wished  to  confute  publicly  the  opinion  of  JVepos,  he  called 
together  the  presbyters  and  teachers  who  taught  in  single  xillages.  From  this  it 
appears,  that  no  one  of  the  bishops  embraced  the  opinion  of  Nepos ;  nor  did  the 
doctrine  find  adherents  in  the  cities,  but  only  in  the  villages  and  hamlets.  He 
[p.  727.]  also  informs  us,  that  Coracion,  when  convinced  of  his  error,  promised 
no  more  to  preach  {^iS'aTx.uv)  that  doctrine  to  the  people.  He  therefore  sustained 
the  office  of  a  preacher  and  presbyter  in  some  village.  But  the  opinion  so  high- 
ly approved  by  Coracion  and  many  other,  though  it  was  quite  moderate,  and 
differed  much  from  the  fictions  of  the  grosser  Chiliasts,  could  by  no  means  find 
approbation  with  Dionysius,  who,  as  abundantly  appears,  was  much  attached  to 
the  principles  of  Origen.  For,  that  souls  once  happily  released  from  their  pri- 
sons, should  again  become  united  to  bodies  possessing  sensations  and  appetites, 
and  su.'^ceptible  of  sensual  pleasures,  and  should,  during  a  thousand  years,  use 
the  perishable  good  things  of  this  life  and  the  allurements  to  all  evil,  was  wholly 
repugnant  to  the  precepts  taught  by  Origen  to  his  followers.  Therefore,  first, 
in  a  public  discussion  of  three  days  continuance,  in  the  very  province  where  the 
error  prevailed,  Dionysius  confuted  the  arguments  of  JSepos;  and  then  also,  in 
two  written  tracts,  he  demonstrated  that  all  the  promises  of  Christ's  kingdom 
had  reference  to  the  soul  and  to  the  celestial  world.  In  the  second  tract  he  la- 
bored, not  indeed  to  destroy,  but  to  diminish,  the  credit  of  those  divine  visions 
of  St.  John,  from  which  Nepos  had  drawn  his  principal  arguments;  by  contend- 
ing that  the  book  called  the  Apocalypse  was  not  the  work  of  St.  John  the 
Apostle,  but  of  some  other  person  of  the  same  name ;  a  holy  man,  indeed,  and 
one  divinely  inspired,  yet  inferior  to  an  Apostle.  This  discussion  respecting  the 
Apocalypse  of  St.  John,  a  part  of  which  is  preserved  by  Eusebius,  contains 
several  things  both  interesting  and  useful  to  be  known  :  not  the  least  of  which 
is  this,  that  Dionysius  evidently  supposed,  there  were  diflerent  degrees  of  what 
is  called  divine  inspiration;  and  that  greater  light  and  power  were  divinely  im- 
parted to  the  Apostles  when  they  wrote,  than  to  other  writers  who  were  influ- 
enced by  the  holy  Spirit,  but  who  had  not  the  honor  to  be  Apostles.  For  in  the 
close  of  his  discourse  he  tells  us,  that  St.  John,  through  the  divine  munificence, 
manifestly  received  not  only  the  gift  of  knowledge,  but  also  that  of  ntterajice  or 


Hise  of  Mamcha'ism.  251 

eloquence.  Td  ^dpia-fxct  TMf  yYO}<rtai,  )tai  tyu  ^piia-tai.  But  tlie  Writer  of  the  Apo- 
calypse, lie  thinks,  received  indeed  from  God  yvticriv  and  Trpopmtiav,  the  gift  of 
knowledge  and  -prophecy^  but  not  that  t«j  ippda-iwi,  or  that  (/  utterance  and  elo- 
quence. Therefore  his  inspiration  was  less  perfect  than  that  of  John  and  the 
other  Apostles.  What  consequences  may  be  drawn  from  this  doctrine,  I  need 
not  state.  But  it  is  very  probable,  that  Dionysius  supposed,  the  doctrines  of 
reliiTion  can  be  fully  proved  only  from  the  writings  oi  Apostles,  to  whom,  as  he 
supposed,  God  granted  complete  inspiration,  and  not  from  the  writings  of  those, 
to  whom  was  given  less  full  inspiration,  or  inspiration  inferior  to  the  Apostoli- 
cal. For  unless  he  supposed  so,  the  object  of  his  elaborate  discussion  respect- 
ing the  author  of  the  Apocalypse,  cannot  be  discovered. — Perhaps  the  remark  is 
worth  adding,  that  it  appears  from  the  account  Dionysius  gives  of  his  [p.  728.] 
conference  with  the  followers  of  Nepos,  that  he  pursued  with  them  the  Socratic 
and  Platonic  mode  of  discussion,  that  by  questions  and  answers  :  which  shows  in 
what  school  he  had  been  trained. 

§  XXXIX.  Rise  of  Manichaeism.  Amid  tliese  efforts  of  tlie 
more  sagacious  Christian  doctors,  by  means  of  pliilosopliy,  to  ar- 
rest the  progress  of  the  Gnostic  sects,  and  to  purge  Christianity 
from  Jewish  defilements,  a  little  past  the  middle  of  the  century, 
a  new  pest,  worse  than  all  that  preceded,  invaded  the  church 
from  Persia;  and,  although  the  greatest  and  wisest  men  with- 
stood it,  both  in  oral  discussion  and  in  books,  yet  they  could  not 
l^revent  its  spreading  with  surprising  rapidity,  almost  throughout 
Christendom,  and  captivating  a  vast  multitude  of  persons  of 
moderate  talents  and  judgment.  Manes,  a  man  of  uncommon 
genius,  eloquence,  and  boldness,  and  richly  endowed  w^ith  all  the 
qualities  which  can  easily  move  and  inflame  the  popular  mind, — 
either  misled  by  some  mental  disease,  or  actuated  by  the  love  of 
fame,  devised  a  new  system  of  religion,  which  was  a  strange  com- 
pound of  the  ancient  Persian  philosophy  and  Christianity ;  and 
boldly  urged  it  upon  the  people,  as  being  divinely  communicated 
to  men.  The  man  himself  experienced  very  adverse  fortune,  and 
died  a  miserable  death ;  but  the  .way  of  salvation  which  he  pro- 
posed, though  full  of  monstrous  ideas  and  puerile  conceptions, 
and  in  no  respect  superior  to  the  Gnostic  fables,  and  more  absurd 
than  most  of  them,  obtained  a  wddcr  circulation  than  any  of  the 
sects  of  the  preceding  times.  Nor  will  this  be  strange  to  a  per- 
son understanding  its  character.  For,  if  we  regard  its  doctrines, 
they  are  all  popular,  and  explain  whatever  is  abstruse  and  diffi- 
cult of  comprehension,  in  the  manner  best  suited  to  vulgar  ap- 
prehension ;  and  if  we  regard  its  moral  precepts,  they  are  gloomy, 


252  Century  Ill.—Section  39. 

and  impress  tlie  beholder  with  a  great  show  of  sanctity,  self- 
denial,  and  contempt  for  worldly  things.  Such  systems  of  religion, 
though  void  of  solidity,  yet,  through  the  weakness  of  human 
nature,  generally  find  many  friends  and  followers.(^) 

(1)  or  nil  the  sects  in  the  first  ages  of  the  church,  none  is  more  notorious, 
none  was  more  difTicult  to  be  subdued  and  put  down,  none  had  a  greater  num- 
ber of  friends,  than  that  founded  by  Manes;  a  prodigy  of  a  man,  and  venerable 
[p.  729.]  in  a  degree,  even  in  the  frenzy  by  which  he  was  actuated.  There  is 
much  similarity  between  him  and  Mohammed;  for  the  former,  like  the  latter, 
boasted  of  divine  visions,  proclaimed  himself  divinely  commissioned  to  reform 
the  corrupted  religion  of  the  Christians,  and  restore  it  to  its  original  perfection; 
showed  a  book,  which  he  falsely  stated  was  dictated  to  him  by  God,  and  sought 
to  obtrude  it  upon  mankind;  and  finally,  has  left  the  succeeding  ages  in  doubt, 
whether  he  should  be  classed  among  the  delirious  and  fanatical,  or  among  the 
artful  impostors. — The  number  of  the  ancient  documents,  from  which  the  his- 
tory and  the  doctrines  of  Manes  may  be  learned,  is  not  inconsiderable.  For, 
not  to  mention  the  well-known  authors  who  wrote  avowedly  on  the  sects  of  the 
early  times,  namely,  Epiphanius,  Augustine,  Eusebius,  Theodoret,  Damascenus, 
and  Philasler;  there  are  extant  some  of  the  writings  o^  Manes  himself,  and  his 
disciples,  from  which  the  opinions  of  the  sect  may  be  illustrated,  and  the  false 
expositions  of  them  be  corrected.  We  have  a  large  part  of  a  tract  of  Manes,  in 
n  Latin  translation  from  the  original,  whether  Greek  or  Syriac,  entitled  Episiola 
Fundamenti ;  contained  in  a  work  of  Augustine,  in  confutation  of  it.  We  have 
a  small  part  of  his  8ermo  de  Fide,  in  Epiphanius,  (Hseres.  Ixvi.  14.  torn.  i.  p.  630.) 
We  have  his  Epistola  ad  Marcellum ;  (in  the  Archelai  Acta  cum  Manete,  p.  6. 
edit.  Zaccagnii.)  We  have  some  fragments  of  his  Epistle  to  a  certain  woman, 
called  Menoch;  preserved  by  Augustine  in  his  imperfect  work  adversus  Julia- 
num  Pelagianum.  We  have,  lastly,  some  fragments  of  his  Epistles,  extracted 
from  a  manuscript  in  the  Jesuits'  College  at  Paris,  and  published  by  Jo.  Alb. 
Fabricius,  (in  his  Bibliotheca  Graeca,  vol.  v.  p.  284.)  In  the  next  place,  there 
are  extant  the  Acta  disputationis  Archelai,  episcopi  Mesopotamia:,  cum  Manete, 
first  published  by  Laur.  Alex.  Zaccagnius,  (in  his  Collectanea  Monumentor. 
veteris  Ecclesia)  Gr.  et  Latinte,  Rome,  1698,  4to.)  and  re-published  by  Jo.  Alb. 
Fabricius,  (in  the  second  vol.  of  the  Opera  Hippolyti.)  This  is  a  very  ancient 
work,  and  was  known  among  Christians  in  the  fourth  century ;  as  is  manifest 
from  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  and  from  Epif.hanius.  The  credibility  and  authority 
of  this  tract  are,  indeed,  learnedly  impugned  by  Isaac  de  Beausobre,  in  his  His- 
tory of  Manichaeism,  (vol.  i.  c.  12,  13.  p.  129.)  who  thinks  it  a  fable,  composed 
by  some  Greek  scribbler  of  the  fourth  century,  about  the  year  330,  and  derived 
partly  from  hearsay,  true  or  false,  and  partly  from  the  ingenuity  of  the  writer; 
and  intended  to  exhihit  the  base  character  of  the  Manichaean  errors.  And  he 
shows,  plainly  enough,  that  these  acts  contain  some  things,  of  the  truth  of  which 
there  is  good  reason  to  doubt.  But,  I  think,  he  has  not  given  evidence,  that  no 
such  discussion  ever  occurred  between  Archelaus  and  Manes.  This  certainly 
cannot  be  legitimately  inferred,  from  some  few  historical  errors  admitted,  or 


Blse  of  Manichccism.  053 

seeming  to  be  admitted,  by  the  writer;  nor  from  the  silence  of  some  amonrr  the 
ancients  and  moderns  respecting  these  Acts.  Yet  no  better  arguments  [p.  730.] 
are  offered  by  this  very  learned  man,  who  possessed  genius  of  a  high  ordc'r,  but 
was  too  ready  to  question  the  credibility  of  the  ancient  Christian  writers,  and 
too  often  relied  upon  his  own  conjectures.  But,  be  this  as  it  may,  these  Acts 
are  certainly  of  high  antiquity ;  and  as  the  depreciator  will  not  deny,  they  con- 
tain many  things,  either  extremely  probable,  or  having  the  appearance  of 
truth. — We  have,  moreover,  at  this  day,  a  book  of  Faiisius,  a  Manichasan  bishop 
in  Africa,  in  which  he  explains  the  doctrines  of  his  sect,  and  defends  them  with 
all  the  eloquence  and  energy  he  possessed.  This  entire  book,  Augustine  has 
very  laudibly  inserted  in  his  confutation  of  it.  To  this  work  of  Faustus,  should 
be  added  two  public  disputes  of  Augustine  with  two  Manicheean  priests,  Felix 
and  Foriunatus;  in  both  of  which,  the  priests  zealously  plead  the  cause  of  their 
church,  stating,  at  the  same  time,  their  sentiments. — Lastly,  some  of  the  early 
opposers  of  Manes,  (of  whom  Fahricius  has  given  a  long  list,  in  his  Bibliotheca 
(jrseca,  vol.  v.  p.  287.)  have  come  down  to  us;  and  no  competent  and  honest 
judge  will  accuse  them  of  bad  faith,  in  stating  the  opinions  of  the  man  they  op- 
posed, or  of  inability  to  confute  those  opinions.  Preeminent  among  them  is 
Augustine^  the  great  doctor  of  the  African  church;  whose  writings  against  the 
Manichaeans,  seem  entitled  to  more  consideration  than  those  of  others  on  the 
same  side,  because  he  was  for  ten  years,  or  from  the  nineteenth  to  the  twenty- 
eighth  year  of  his  life,  a  member  of  the  Manichfean  community,  and  had  im- 
bibed all  the  principles  of  that  sect.  The  learned  Beausohre,  just  mentioned, 
objects,  indeed,  and  denies  that  Augustine  is  one  from  whom  the  doctrines  of 
the  Manichaeans  can  be  ascertained  with  correctness;  and  he  seeks  to  confirm 
this  decision  by  examples.  Nor  is  he  wholly  wrong;  for  it  must  be  acknow- 
ledged, that  Augustine  sometimes  deduces  consequences  from  the  language  and 
opinions  of  the  Manichaeans,  which  they,  his  ancient  associates,  rejected ;  which 
is  a  common  thing  with  all  polemics.  I  will  also  willingly  admit,  that  he  slightly 
modifies  some  opinions  of  his  adversaries,  in  order  to  assail  them  with  more 
effect.  And  yet  I  deliberately  affirm,  after  examining  well  the  subject,  that  in 
most  things,  one  who  wishes  to  understand  the  mysteries  of  Manichaeism,  may 
follow  Augustine  without  fear  of  being  misled.  Nor  will  the  minor  errors  into 
which  Augustine  sometimes  falls,  prove  injurious,. since  he  quotes  the  very 
words  of  Manes  and  Manichaeans,  from  which  may  be  learned,  without  difficulty, 
whether  he  made  a  mistake  or  not. — Next  to  Augustine,  among  the  antagonists 
of  Manichaeism  who  have  escaped  the  ravages  of  time,  the  most  worthy  of 
notice  is  Titus,  bishop  of  Bostra,  in  Phenicia,  whose  Libri  tres  contra  Mani- 
chaeos,  together  with  the  Argument  of  the  fourth  Book,  (first  published  only  in 
Latin,)  are  now  extant,  Greek  and  Latin,  in  the  Lectiones  antiqua;  of  [p.  731.] 
Henry  Canisius,  as  re-published  by  Ja.  Basnage,  (tom.  i.  p.  156,  &c.)  This 
work  is  carefully  and  accurately  written;  although  it  does  not  embrace  the 
whole  system  of  Manes,  but  only  a  very  material  part  of  it,  drawn  from  his 
book  de  Mysteriis.  In  the  same  Lectiones  antiquae,  (tom.  i.  p.  197.)  there  is  ex- 
tant, Greek  and  Latin,  the  Liber  contra  Manichajos  of  Didymus  of  Alexandria; 
but  it  is  brief,  and  does  not  adequately  explain  the  views  of  the  Manichaeans. 


254  Centunj  IIL—Sectlon  39. 

More  to  be  recommended,  is  the  ^o>-5f  ^/>oj  t-u?  Uttnx^i'^^  cTo^ac,  or  Liber  contra 
Manichcei  opiniones,  of  Alexander,  a  philosopher  of  Lycopolis;  published,  Greek 
and  Lat.  by  Francis  Combefis,  (in  his  Auetarium  novissimum  Bibliothecae  Patr. 
torn.  ii.  p.  260.)  But  it  requires  a  sagacious  reader,  and  one  not  ignorant  of  the 
new  Phitonic  philosophy,  to  which  the  author  was  addicted,  and  the  principles 
of  whicli  are  made  the  basis  of  the  argumentation.  Alexander  also  passes  over, 
or  but  slightly  touches,  many  points  very  necessary  to  be  known,  in  order  to 
form  a  correct  judgment  of  the  controversy.  Of  other  writers,  inferior  to  these, 
and  affording  little  aid  to  the  investigator,  I  need  not  give  account.— From  the 
documents  above  described,  yet  without  disregarding  those  which  incidentally 
speak  of  the  Manichaan  doctrines,  I  will  present  to  the  view  of  my  readers  a 
brief,  but  faithful  digest  of  the  Manichsean  system,  methodically  arranged,  taking 
great  care  to  state  nothing  as  true,  which  is  dubious  and  uncertain. 

A  catalogue  of  modern  writers,  concerning  the  Manichseans,  is  given  by  Jo. 
Alb.  Fahricius,  (in  his  Bibliotheca  Graeca,  vol.  v.  p.  296.)  but  the  best  and  most 
elaborate  of  them  all,  Fahricius  could  not  mention,  because  his  work  was  not 
then  published.  That  writer  is  Isaac  de  Beausohre,  a  man  of  superior  genius 
and  of  widely  extended  knowledge;  whose  History  of  Manes  and  Manichccism, 
written  in  French,  was  published  at  Amsterdam,  1734  and  1739,  in  two  vols. 
4to.  This  work  will  do  honor  to  the  author's  name,  in  all  future  ages,  wherever 
letters,  genius,  learning,  and  all  good  arts  shall  be  held  in  estimation ;  for  it  ad- 
mirably elucidates  many  points  of  Christian  antiquities,  and  contributes  not  a 
little  to  a  correct  knowledge  of  the  doctrines  held  by  those  who,  in  the  first 
ages  of  Christianity,  receded  from  the  general  church  and  formed  separate  com- 
munities. And  yet,  as  in  all  human  composition,  so  in  this  work  of  diversified 
learning  and  of  vast  labor,  there  are  some  things,  which  an  impartial  man,  whose 
only  aim  is  truth,  could  wish  were  otherwise.  And  first,  in  this  history  of  Ma- 
nes and  of  Manichccism,  there  are  many  things  which  do  not  relate  to  the  sub- 
ject. For  the  very  learned  author,  who  had  read  much,  heard  much,  and 
treasured  up  much,  upon  every  favorable  occasion  deviates  from  his  subject,  and 
pours  forth  abundance  of  matter,  not  at  all  necessary  to  our  having  a  full  know- 
ledge of  Manes  and  his  followers.  These  frequent  and  long  digressions,  though 
all  of  them  contain  useful  matter,  often  embarrass  the  reader,  and  may  cause 
[p.  732.]  him  sometimes  to  misapprehend  the  author's  meaning.  For  when 
things  in  some  way  connected,  but  in  other  respects  wholly  unlike,  are  associ- 
ated and  commingled,  confusion  may  arise  prejudicai  to  the  truth.  Still,  this 
superabundance,  as  it  has  its  utility,  we  can  the  more  easily  overlook  in  this  ex- 
traordinary  man.  But  it  is  a  matter  of  greater  moment,  that  the  author  strains 
every  nerve  of  his  ingenuity,  to  make  nearly  all  the  heretics  of  the  early  ages, 
and  especially  the  Manichseans,  appear  to  be  more  wise,  more  holy,  more  excel- 
lent, than  they  are  commonly  held  to  be.  In  this  matter,  as  may  be  easily 
shown,  this  excellent  man  is  first  carried  too  far  by  a  kind  of  ill-will  towards  the 
doctors  of  the  ancient  church ;  and  then,  again,  he  is  inconsistent  with  himself. 
For,  frequently,  when  too  much  evidence  presses  upon  him,  he  acknowledges, 
that  among  the  heretics  of  the  first  ages  there  were  men  delirious  and  foolish  ; 
and  that  Manes  himself,  whom  he  favors  the  most,  was  a  splendid  trifler,  and 


L'lfc  of  Manes.  255 

either  aimed  to  boiTuile  and  deceive  others,  or  was  liiniself  deceived  hy  some 
vagary  of  his  own  mind  :  yet,  at  otiier  times,  he  maintains  that  the  very  persons, 
vvlioni  lie  iiad  bel'ore  censured,  were  re:il  philosopliers,  and  not  weak  men;  and 
he  not  only  defends  and  vindicates  Manes,  but  actually  honors  him,  not  merely 
with  the  splendid  iippellation  of  a  philosopher,  but  of  a  philosopher  lohn  reasojis 
well.  Thus  this  erudite  man  fluctuates,  and  is  borne  in  opposite  directions, 
being  urged  on  the  one  side  by  regard  for  truth,  and  on  the  other,  by  his  partiality 
for  the  heretics,  especially  for  Manes.  And  in  order  the  more  easily  to  defend  Ma- 
nes and  the  heretics  generally,  he  either  tacitly  or  expressly  assumes  as  facts, 
some  things  which  those  who  differ  from  him  will  not  readily  admit.  Among  these 
assumptions,  the  principal  one  is,  that  all  the  ancient  doctors  of  the  church, 
either  from  ignorance  or  from  malice,  calumniate  the  Jieretics,  and  misrepresent 
their  sentiments.  This  is  easily  said ;  but  it  is  far  more  difficult  to  prove  it, 
than  they  imagine,  who  in  our  age  adopt  it  in  treating  of  the  history  of  the  here- 
tics :  and  the  number  of  such  is  well  known  to  be  great.  Yet,  relying  on  this 
maxim,  this  learned  man,  whenever  he  finds  anything  in  fiivor  of  Manes  or  the 
other  heretics,  which  seems  not  to  accord  with  the  decisions  of  his  adversaries, 
confidently  embraces  it,  as  a  thing  not  to  be  questioned  at  all,  and  applies  it  to 
overthrow  the  uniform  statements  of  many  other  witnesses.  And  in  such  cases  I 
never  discover  any  want  of  learning  and  ingenuity,  but  I  often  see  a  deficiency 
of  caution  and  fairness. — There  is  another  of  this  learned  man's  rules,  which  is 
very  dubious.  It  is,  that  whenever  any  doctrine  attributed  to  the  heretics  con- 
tains things  absurd,  silly,  futile,  or  contrary  to  common  sense,  then  we  must 
suppose  that  doctrine  ft^lsely  attributed  to  those  heretics.  It  is  well,  however, 
that  the  learned  man  himself  does  not  always  follow  this  rule;  for  he  is  some- 
times compelled,  reluctantly,  to  acknowledge,  that  Manes  and  others  embraced 
not  a  few  opinions  wholly  at  variance  with  every  appearance  of  rationality,  the 
dreams  of  the  delirious,  rather  than  the  judgments  of  men  in  their  right  minds. 
And  yet  he  often  resorts  to  that  rule,  although  it  is  manifest  that  nothing  could 
be  more  fallacious;  and  there  are  numberless  examples  of  persons,  not  [p.  733.] 
wholly  bereft  of  reason,  yet  most  shamefully  violating  the  first  principles  of 
reason,  and  debasing  religion  with  the  most  silly  fictions.— I  will  not  mention 
other  things,  wliich  might  reasonably  be  censured,  in  a  book  otherwise  most 
beautiful ;  things,  however,  which  ought  to  be  so  censured,  as  not  to  detract 
from  the  great  merits  and  reputation  of  the  author. 

§  XL.  The  Life  and  Labors  of  Manes.  Eespecting  tlie  life  and 
labors  of  Manes,  there  is  great  disagreement  between  tlie  Greek 
and  tbe  Oriental  writers ;  and  as  this  disagreement  can  in  no  way 
be  reconciled,  and  both  seem  to  have  blended  the  true  and  the 
false,  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  separation  at  this  late  day,  all 
that  remains  for  us  to  do,  is  to  state  what  they  unitedly  teach, 
and  leave  the  rest  to  be  discussed  by  the  curious.(')  The  things 
in  which  they  all  agree,  are  substantially  as  follows :    Manes,  or 


25G  Century  Ill—Section  40. 

Manich^us,  for  lie  is  called  by  both  names,  was  a  native  of 
Persia,  a  man  of  a  venerable  aspect,  of  an  exceedingly  fecund 
genius,  was  educated  in  the  schools  of  the  Magi,  and  was  master 
of  all  the  arts  and  learning,  which  the  Persians  of  those  times 
considered  as  constituting  human  wisdom.     Having  become  ac* 
quainted  with  the  books  of  the  Christians,  and  perceiving  that 
the  religion  they  contained  agreed,  in  some  respects,  with  his 
philosophy,  but  disagreed  with  it  in  other  respects,  he  formed  the 
purpose  of  combining  them,  correcting  and  enlarging  the  one  by 
the  other,  and  then  of  inculcating  on  mankind  a  new  system  of 
religion,  compounded  of  the  two.    Adopting  this  plan,  he  first 
decided  that  Jesus  Christ  left  his  statement  of  the  way  of  salva- 
tion imperfect ;  and  in  the  next  place,  he  ventured  to  declare  him- 
self to  be  either  a  divinely  taught  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  or 
rather   that   very  Paraclete,   or   Comforter,   whom   the   retiring 
Saviour  promised  to  his  disciples. (^)    With  what  sincerity  he  as- 
sumed such  a  character,  it  is  not  easy  to  say.     Some  tell  us,  that 
being  by  nature  proud,  excessively  arrogant,  and  vain,  his  heat- 
ed mind  became  deranged.    Yet  his  insanity  was  not  such  as  to 
prevent  his  digesting  his  system  very  well,  and  distinctly  seeing 
[p.  734.]  how  it  could  be  assailed,  and  how  defended.    Among 
other  proofs  of  this,  is  the  fact  that  he  either  wholly  rejected,  or 
essentially  altered,  whatever  he  found  in  the  Christian  scriptures 
apparently  contrary  to  his  doctrines  and  purposes ;  and  in  place 
of  the  discarded  passages,  he  substituted  others,  especially  such 
as  he  wished  to  have  considered  as  written  by  him  under  a  divine 
inspiration.(^) — The  king  of  Persia,  for  some  cause  not  ascertain- 
ed, cast  him  into  prison.     Escaping  from  confinement,  and  call- 
ing to  his  aid  twelve  friends  or  Apostles,  in  imitation  of  Christ, 
he  spread  the  religion  he  had  devised,  over  a  great  part  of  Persia, 
persuading  many  to  embrace  it ;  and  he  sent  out  the  most  elo- 
quent of  his  disciples  into  the  adjacent  countries,  who  were  also 
successful.    In  the  midst  of  these  enterprises,  by  the  command  ot 
the  king  of  Persia,  he  was  seized  by  soldiers  and  put  to  death. 
This  was  probably  in  the  year  278,  or  a  little  later.    As  to  the 
mode  of  his  death,  writers  are  not  agreed.    That  he  was  put  to 
death,  is  very  certain.    The  memorial  of  it,  the  Manicha^ans  an- 
nually celebrated  in  the  month  of  March,  by  a  festal  day,  which 
they  called  Bema.{*)    This  sad  fate  of  the  man  strengthened  his 


Life  of  Manes,  257 

adherents,  more  than  it  terrified  tlieni.  For  such  of  them  as  had 
the  most  talent  and  elo(iuenee,  roamed  over  Syria,  Persia,  J^gypt, 
Afriea,  and  ahnost  all  ei)untries  of  the  civilized  world,  and  every- 
where converted  many,  by  the  gravity  of  their  deportment,  and 
by  the  rude  simplicity  of  the  religion  they  inculcated. 

(1)  The  iKvine  of  the  man  under  consideration,  was  j\rANi;  for  so  the  Ori- 
ental writers  call  him,  according  to  Herbeloi,  (Bibliotheca  Orient,  voce  Mani.) 
Nor  was  this  an  uncommon  name  among  the  Persians.  The  Greek  writers  tell 
us,  that  he  was  at  first  called  Cubricus;  and  that  he  dropped  that,  and  assumed 
the  name  of  Manes.  Beausohre  (torn.  i.  p.  67.)  conjectures,  that  he  was  born  in 
the  city  of  Carcoub,  and  thence  was  called  Carcubius,  which  became  changed 
into  Cubricus.  There  is  nothing  certain  on  this  subject. — He  is  also  called 
]\rANicH.EUS.  According  to  Augustine,  (de  Ilaeres.  c.  46.  0pp.  tom.  viii.  p.  10; 
and,  contra  Faustum,  L.  xix.  c.  22.  tom.  viii.  p.  231.)  it  was  his  disciples  who 
gave  him  this  name,  in  order  to  avoid  a  name  which  in  Greek  denotes  insanity. 
For  Manes  (/uaK«j)  in  Greek,  denotes  a  mad  or  crazy  man.  And  therefore  his 
enemies  made  his  very  name  a  reproach  to  him,  and  said :  it  was  so  ordered,  in 
divine  providence,  that  he  should  receive  a  name  expressive  of  his  insanity.  To 
parry  this  weaj[>on,  of  so  little  force,  his  adherents  chose  to  name  their  master 
j\Ianich<£iis, 

All  that  the  Greek  and  Latin  writers  state  concerning  him,  with  only  [p.  735.] 
a  few  exceptions,  is  contained  in  the  Contest  of  Archelaus,  the  bishop  of  Cas- 
<'.ara,with  Manes,  first  published  by  Zaccagnius. — These  writers,  however,  deny 
that  Manes  was  the  author  of  the  religion  which  he  taught ;  and  tell  us  that 
one  Scythianus,  a  contemporary  of  the  Apostles,  who  died  in  Judea,  invented  it, 
and  committed  it  to  w^riting  in  four  Books.  One  of  his  disciples,  named  Tere- 
binthus,  who  subsequently  took  the  name  of  Buclda,  after  the  death  of  his  pre- 
ceptor, went  to  Assyria,  and  lived  with  a  certain  widow  woman.  He  died  a 
violent  death:  for,  as  he  was  praying  on  the  roof  of  the  house,  an  evil  genius, 
by  divine  direction,  precipitated  him  to  the  ground ;  which  caused  his  death.  The 
widow  woman  inherited  the  goods  and  the  books  of  the  unhappy  man ;  and, 
with  the  money,  she  purchased  a  boy  seven  years  old,  whose  name  was  CubH' 
cus  ;  and  as  he  manifested  fine  native  powers,  she  caused  him  to  be  instructed  in 
the  literature  and  arts  of  the  Persians ;  and  finall}',  at  her  death,  five  years 
after,  she  made  him  heir  to  all  her  fortune,  including  the  books  left  by  Tere- 
bintlnis.  Cubricus,  after  the  death  of  his  patroness,  in  order  to  efface  all  re- 
membrance of  his  former  servile  condition,  assumed  the  name  of  Manes,  and 
devoted  himself  intensely  to  the  study  of  the  arts  and  sciences  of  the  Persians, 
but  especially  to  the  understanding  the  books  of  Terebinthus.  He  was  but 
twelve  years  old  at  the  time  he  became  his  own  master.  When,  from  the 
books  of  Terebinthus,  which  he  had  always  before  him,  he  understood  the  whole 
system  of  Terebinthus,  he  not  only  embraced  it  himself,  but  also  persuaded  three 
others  to  embrace  it,  whose  names  were  Thomas,  Adda,  and  Hernias.  When 
sixty  years  old,  he  translated  the  books  of  Terebinthus  into  the  Persian  lan- 
guage ;  adding,  however,  many  silly  and  fabulous  inventions  of  hio  own  mind ; 

VOL.  II.  18 


258  Century  IIL—Secilon  40. 

and  therefore  affixing  his  own  name  to  the  books,  instead  of  that  of  the  original 
author.  After  this,  he  sent  out  two  of  his  disciples,  one  of  them  to  Egypt,  and 
the  other  to  Seythia.  About  the  same  time,  a  son  of  the  king  of  Persia  became 
dangerously  sick  :  and  Manes,  who  had  learned  the  medical  art,  went  to  the  king, 
and  promised  to  restore  the  child  to  health.  But  he  could  not  conquer  the  dis- 
ease  ;  and  the  child  died.  The  king  therefore  ordered  the  physician  to  be  load- 
ed with  chains,  and  to  be  cast  into  prison.  While  he  was  a  prisoner,  Manes 
became  acquainted  with  the  Christian  religion,  of  which  he  had  before  no  know- 
ledge.  For  his  (two)  disciples  returning  from  their  travels,  told  their  master, 
that  none  resisted  their  teaching  and  exhortations  so  strenuously  as  the  chris- 
tians. Anxious,  therefore,  to  acquaint  himself  with  this  subject,  he  directed  his 
friends  to  procure  for  him  the  books  of  the  christians.  Having  read  them,  and 
learning  that  Christ  promised  his  followers  to  send  them  the  Paraclete,  he  pro- 
claimed himself  to  be  that  Paraclete ;  and  he  transferred  into  his  own  system, 
a  portion  of  the  christian  religion,  in  an  adulterated  state.  Then  followed  a 
new  mission  of  his  disciples  into  different  countries,  for  the  express  purpose  of 
[p.  736.]  making  proselytes.  The  king  of  Persia,  on  learning  this  new  crime  of 
Manes,  purposed  to  kill  him.  But,  by  bribing  his  keepers,  he  escaped  from 
prison,  and  concealed  himself  in  a  certain  fortress  called  Arabian.  Soon  after, 
leaving  this  retreat,  and  taking  with  him  his  twelve  Apostles  or  associates,  he 
travelled  over  a  part  of  Persia ;  and,  among  other  efforts  for  the  establishment 
of  his  sect,  he  held  a  public  religious  discussion  with  Archelaus,  the  prelate  of 
Cascara.  At  last,  the  soldiers,  whom  the  king  commanded  to  pursue  him,  con- 
fined him  in  the  fortress  of  Arabion :  and  the  king  ordered  the  unhappy  man 
to  be  flayed,  his  skin  to  be  stuffed  and  hung  up  before  the  city  gate,  and  his 
body  to  be  cast  out  and  be  food  for  the  birds, — This  story,  Beausohre  has  illus- 
trated in  a  long,  copious,  and  very  erudite  Dissertation,  introductory  to  his 
volume.  But  his  chief  aim  is,  to  persuade  us,  that  the  greatest  part  of  this  nar- 
rative is  a  vile  fable.  And  yet  he  adduces  and  inserts  many  things,  which  serve 
rather  to  protract  and  extend  the  discussion,  than  to  confirm  it;  and  which 
might  be  omitted,  without  any  detriment  to  the  cause  espoused  by  the  learned 
man. 

We  now  proceed  to  the  fticts  concerning  this  wonderful  man,  as  stated  by 
the  Oriental  writers,  Persian,  Syrian,  and  Arabian  ;  which  facts  have  been  col- 
lected from  various  authors,  by  the  well-informed  Oriental  scholars,  Barthol. 
Herbelot  (Bibliotheque  Orientale,  voce  Mani,  p.  548.)  Thomas  Hyde,  (His- 
toria  Relig.  veter.  Persar.  c.  21.  p.  280.)  Euseb.  Renaudot,  (Historia  Patri- 
arch.  Alexandrinor.  p.  42.)  Edw.  Pocock,  (Specimen  Hist.  Arabum,  p.  149, 
&c.)  and  a  few  others.  These  facts  have  been  arranged  in  a  certain  order, 
and  amplified  with  various  observations,  some  more  and  some  less  necessary, 
by  Ja.  Beausohre,  (Histoire  de  Manich.  tome  i.  p.  155,  &c.)  They  differ  ma- 
terially from  the  facts  stated  by  the  Greeks :  and  hence  the  question  arises : 
Which  statement  is  most  worthy  of  credit  ?  Renaudot  (Hist.  Patriarch.  Alex- 
andr.  p.  48.)  thinks  the  Greeks  are  the  best  authority :  nor  will  this  opinion 
meet  strong  opposition,  from  one  who  reflects,  that  the  Greek  authors  are  much 
more  ancient  than  the  Oriental ;  and  that  the  latter,  almost  universally,  are  not 


Life  of  Manes.  250 

distinguished  for  either  accuracy,  or  method,  or  for  their  selection  of  facta,  and 
moreover,  that  tliey  delight  in  fabU's  aud  marvellous  stories.  And  yet  /imu- 
sohre  (p.  156.)  deems  the  Oriental  writers  preferable  to  the  Greeks ; /rs^,  be- 
cause the  events  occurred  iu  their  country ;  and  secondly,  because  the  facts 
which  they  state,  are  more  according  to  nature  (plus  naiurelle),  than  those  stated 
by  the  Greeks.  But  I  doubt  whether  there  is  so  much  strength  in  these  two 
reasons,  as  the  learned  man  supposed.  For  we  know  very  well,  that  the  Ori- 
entals recount  very  many  occurrences  in  their  country,  which  are  exceedingly 
dubious  and  uncertain  ;  as  I  could  show  by  examples  that  are  beyond  all  con- 
troversy, if  it  were  necessary,  and  if  this  were  a  proper  place.  And,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  superstition  and  habitual  credulity  of  all  the  Oriental  histo- 
rians, it  should  be  recollected,  that  it  is  only  the  Persians,  iind  not  like-  [p.  737.] 
wise  the  Syrians  and  Arabians,  who  in  this  case  can  be  said  to  relate  occurrences 
in  their  own  country. — Whether  the  things  stated  by  the  Greeks,  or  those  stated 
by  the  Orientals,  are  in  themselves  the  most  probable,  is  a  difficult  question  to 
determine  ;  because  the  judgments  of  men,  respecting  the  greater  or  less  degree 
of  probability,  dilTer  wonderfully.  But  I  will  not  assume  the  functions  of  an 
arbiter  in  this  controversy.  Yet  I  think  it  proper  to  warn  those  who  would 
assume  those  functions,  that  they  should,  in  the  very  outset,  determine  which 
narrative  of  the  Orientals  is  to  be  preferred  to  that  of  the  Greeks.  For,  while 
the  Greeks  agree  with  each  other  very  well,  except  only  in  some  minute  points, 
and  perhaps  all  derived  their  information  from  one  source;  the  Orientals  differ  ex- 
ceedingly from  each  other,  or  do  not  ail  give  the  same  account  of  the  life,  la- 
bors and  death  of  Manes.  This  disagreement, — to  speak  plainly, — the  learned 
Beausohre  dissembles,  and  gives  a  history  of  Manes  from  the  Oriental  writers, 
in  a  manner  that  would  lead  the  reader  to  believe,  that  all  those  writers  ac- 
corded with  each  other,  just  as  the  Greeks  do ;  and  yet  his  history  of  Manes, 
which  he  calls  that  of  the  Orientals,  and  sets  in  opposition  to  that  of  the  Greeks, 
is  a  tissue  of  various  extracts  taken  from  different  vvriters.  He  states,  for  in- 
stance, that  Manes  was  a  presbyter  among  the  Christians,  before  he  formed  his 
new  religion  ;  and  he  makes  the  statement,  just  as  if  all  the  Oriental  writers 
testified  to  the  fact.  The  thing  stated  is  not  incredible :  and  yet  it  is  most  cer- 
tain, that  no  Oriental  says  it,  except  Ahulpharaius  only ;  who  is  indeed  a  re- 
spectable author,  but  a  recent  one,  and  far  removed  from  the  age  of  Manes,  for 
he  lived  in  the  thirteenth  century  ;  he  was,  moreover,  a  Syrian,  and  not  a  Per- 
sian ;  and  lastly,  he  was  not  exempt  from  all  mistakes. — But  let  us  hear  what 
the  Orientals  can  tell  us  about  Manes. 

In  the  first  place,  most  of  them  agree  that  Manes,  or  rather  Mani,  (for  that 
was  his  true  name,)  was  a  Magian  by  birth;  and  that  he  excelled  in  all  the 
branches  of  learning,  then  held  in  estimation  among  the  Magi.  In  particular, 
they  tell  us  that  he  was  very  skilful  in  Music,  Mathematics,  Astronomy,  Medi- 
cine,  Geography,  and  finally  in  Painting;  and  the  Persian  Condemir  tells  us» 
that  he  ornamented  his  Gospel  with  admirable  devices  and  imagery.  All  this  ia 
quite  probable,  nay,  may  be  accounted  nearly  certain ;  for  he  was  a  man  of  ex- 
uberant genius,  well  fitted  to*acquire  and  to  practise  the  arts  in  which  the  pow- 
ers  of  genius  and  imagination  predominate.    The  Greeks  do  not,  indeed,  ex- 


20)0  Century  IIL—Section  40. 

prcssly  attribute  to  him  .ill  these  acquisitions ;  yet  they  admit,  in  the  general, 
that  he  was  a  very  learned  man ;  and,  therefore,  they  do  not  in  this  matter  con- 
tradiet  the  Orientals.  I  can  the  most  readily  believe,  what  is  reported  of  his 
ornamenting  his  Erlung,  or  Gospel,  with  beautiful  imagery.  For  all  the 
Gnostic  systems  of  religion  are  of  such  a  nature,  as  to  be  easily  delineated,  or 
[p.  738.]  represented  by  drawings  and  colors  in  a  picture;  nay,  they  can  be  bet- 
ter understood  from  paintings,  than  from  language  and  written  books ;  and  no 
one  of  them  can  be  more  easily  delineated  by  the  pencil,  than  the  Maniehaan; 
which  consist  almost  wholly  of  fables  or  fictitious  histories.  And  hence  the 
Gnostic  teachers,  (as  appears  from  the  example  of  the  Ophites,  in  Origen  against 
Celsus,)  were  accustomed  to  put  into  the  hands  of  the  common  people  such 
pictorial  systems  of  religion ;  that  is,  pictures,  in  which  the  principal  topics  of 
their  religion  were  presented  to  the  eye  in  diagrams,  figures,  and  images.  But 
what  we  are  told  of  the  exquisite  skill  of  Manes  in  the  above-named  arts,  must 
be  understood  and  estimated,  not  according  to  our  standard  of  excellence,  but 
according  to  that  of  the  Persians  of  that  age.  Beausohre  seems  not  to  have  duly 
considered  this;  for  he  declares  the  man  to  have  been,  in  general,  an  excellent 
Mathematician,  Natural  Philosopher,  and  Geographer.  He  might  appear  so  to 
the  Persians,  but  he  was  a  small  man,  if  compared  wdtli  our  Mathematicians, 
Philosophers,  and  Naturalists;  nay,  he  was  a  rustic,  and  scarcely  imbued  with 
the  rudiments  of  Mathematics,  Geography,  and  Physical  Science ;  and  what  is 
more,  he  embraced  not  a  few  errors,  which  even  tyros  among  us  can  see 
through. 

After  embracing  the  Christian  religion,  Manes  was  made  a  priest,  or  presby- 
ter, in  the  city  Ehivazi,  or  in  the  province  Ahvas,  as  Herbelot  renders  it.  In  this 
situation  he  explained  books,  and  disputed  with  Jews,  loith  the  Magi,  and  with 
Pagans.  Thus  much,  and  no  more,  is  transmitted  by  a  single  writer,  Gregory 
Ahulpharaius,  (in  his  Historia  Dynastarum,  p.  82.)  But  the  learned  Beansobre, 
who  is  studious  of  honoring  Manes  all  he  can,  not  only  relates  the  matter,  as  if 
it  were  supported  by  the  united  testimony  of  all  the  Oriental  writers,  but  he 
adds  to  it  several  things  supported  by  no  authority.  For  he  tells  us, — I.  That 
Manes  was  learned  in  the  scriptures;  (Savant  dans  la  Ecriture.) — II.  That  he 
was  very  zealous  in  supporting  the  dignity  and  authority  of  Christianity.  (72 
avoit  un  grand  zele  pour  la  foi.) — III.  That  these  qualifications  induced  the 
Christians  to  raise  him  to  a  presbytership,  zvhile  but  a  youth,  and  in  a  city  of  the 
first  rank,  (une  xille  ires  considerable.) — IV.  That  in  this  station,  he  exhibited 
great  proofs  of  zeal  and  virtue. — V,  But  that,  at  length,  he  apostatized  from 
Christianity;  and,  for  this  instance  of  bad  faith,  he  was  excluded  from  the  com- 
munion of  Christians. — I  wonder  how  so  great  a  man,  one  so  acute  and  dis- 
criminating, one  who  severely  censures  and  rebukes  even  the  slight  errors  of 
great  men,  could  boldly  utter  all  this,  when  it  has  no  authority  whatever,  but  is 
drawm  wholly  from  his  own  fimcy.  Surely !  if  another  person  had  dared  to  do 
such  a  thing,  this  great  man  would  have  castigated  him  severely. 

Manes, — it  is  uncertain  on  what  occasion,  or  for  what  cause,  went  to  the 
court  of  Sapor,  the  king  of  Persia,  called  Shaboi&  by  the  Persians.  And  he  so 
insinuated  himself  into  the  king's  confidence,  that  he  even  drew  him  over  to  the 


Life  of  Manes.  2G1 

religion  he  liad  devised.  Einboldoned  by  tiiis  success,  he  gathered  [p.  739.] 
around  him  a  number  of  discipkvs,  and  assailed  publicly  the  ancient  Persian  re- 
ligion, founded  by  Zoroaster.  Sapor,  either  offended  at  this,  or  being  prompted 
by  the  Magi  and  the  priests,  determined  to  put  him  to  death.  Manes,  beincr  in- 
formed of  the  design,  Hed  into  Turkestan.  There  he  drew  many  to  his  party; 
and,  among  other  things,  (as  Thos.  Hyde  states  from  one  Rustejn.)  painted  two 
Persian  temples.  Afterwards,  finding  a  certain  cave  in  which  there  was  a  foun- 
tain, he  concealed  himself  in  it  during  a  year;  having  previously  assured  his 
disciples,  that  lie  should  appear  in  a  certain  place  after  a  year,  and  that  in  the 
meantime  he  should  nscend  to  heaven.  In  that  cave  he  composed  his  book, 
called  by  the  Orientals  Azeng,  or  Arzenk,  i.  e.  a  Gospel;  and  ornamented  it  with 
very  beautiful  pictures.  At  the  end  of  the  year,  coming  forth  from  the  cave,  he 
showed  the  book  to  his  followers,  as  one  which  he  received  in  heaven,  and 
brought  thence  with  him.  These  things  are  stated  by  a  single  Persian  historian, 
Condemir;  others  know  nothing  of  them.  They  are  not  incongruous  with  the 
genius  of  the  man,  but  whether  true  or  false,  who  can  tell?  In  the  meantime, 
Sapor,  the  king  of  Persia,  died,  and  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Hormisdas.  On 
learning  this,  Manes  returned  from  Turkestan  to  Persia,  and  presented  to  the 
new  king  his  book,  which  he  called  divine  and  heavenly.  Hormisdas,  or'  Hor- 
moiiz,  not  only  received  him  kindly,  but  also  embraced  the  religion  contained  in 
his  book,  and  ordered  a  tower  to  be  built  for  liim,  called  Dascarrah,  in  which  he 
might  be  safe  from  the  plots  of  his  enemies,  who  were  very  numerous.  See 
HerheloCs  Bibliotheque  Orientale,  (voce  Dascarrah,  p.  288.  No  authority  is 
given.)  This  is  the  tower,  as  Beausobre  conjectures,  which  the  Greeks  call 
Arabian.  Those  who  may  think  this  kindness  of  the  king  to  Manes  singular 
and  strange,  should  consider  that  Hormisdas,  previously,  in  the  lifetime  of  his 
father,  had  favored  Manes  and  his  opinions.  Nor  is  it  supposable  that,  on 
merely  hearing  Manes  speak,  and  seeing  his  book,  he  embraced  his  opinions. 
And  here  a  conjecture  arises,  which,  the  more  I  consider  it,  the  more  probable 
it  appears.  I  suspect,  that  what  the  Greeks  tell  us  of  the  king's  son's  being 
consigned  to  the  medical  treatment  of  Manes,  and  dying  in  his  hands,  was  an 
Oriental  allegory,  and  was  misunderstood  by  the  Greeks.  Sapor  committed  his 
son  to  the  tuition  of  Manes,  to  be  instructed  in  the  precepts  of  his  wisdom  ; 
but  Manes  seduced  the  prince  from  the  religion  of  his  ancestors,  and  initiated 
him  in  his  new  religion.  This  transaction,  the  Orientals,  who  delight  in  meta- 
phors and  allegories,  wrapped  up  in  similitudes,  by  comparing  the  ignorance  of 
the  prince  with  a  disease,  his  instruction  with  the  cure  of  the  disease,  and  his 
defection  from  the  religion  of  his  ancestors  with  death ;  but  the  Greeks,  [p.  740.] 
little  accustomed  to  this  species  of  discourse,  supposed  the  things  described  to 
be  real  facts. — This  prosperity  of  Manes  was  short.  Hormisdas  died  at  the  end 
of  two  years;  and  his  son  Varanes  I.  whom  the  Persians  call  Behram,  or  Baha- 
ram,\n  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  indeed,  treated  Manes  with  kindness;  but 
soon  his  feelings  were  changed,  and  he  determined  to  destroy  him.  He,  there- 
fore, allured  Manes  from  the  fortress  in  which  he  was  concealed,  under  pretence 
of  holding  a  discussion  with  the  chiefs  of  the  Magi,  and  then  ordered  him  to  be 
put  to  death,  as  a  corrupter  of  religion.     Some  tell  us  he  was  cleaved  asunder; 


262  Century  Ill—Section  40. 

others,  that  he  was  crucified ;  and  others,  agreeing  with  the  Greeks,  that  he  wag 
flayed.  All,  both  Greeks  and  Orientals,  agree  that  he  was  executed. — This 
short  story,  Beausobre  has  not  only  loaded  with  a  mass  of  various  ob^^ervatioM^, 
learned,  indeed,  but  often  having  little  connexion  with  the  subject,  but  has  also 
sometimes  augmented,  with  conjectures  wholly  unsupported  by  any  testimony. 
(2.)Manes  dilfered  essentially  from  the  other  heretics.  For  they  all  professed  to 
teach  the  religion  which  was  inculcated  by  Jesus  Christ  publicly,  or  among  his  se- 
lect friends ;  and  they  proved  their  doctrines  by  citations  from  the  writings  of  his 
Apostles.  But  far  otherwise  Manes ;  as  is  put  beyond  doubt,  by  what  he  taught 
respecting  himself.  He  acknowledged,  that  his  religious  system  could  not  be 
proved,  in  all  its  parts,  from  the  books  left  us  by  the  Apostles :  and  he  pro- 
duced a  new  book,  which,  he  said,  was  divinely  dictated  to  him  :  and  lastly,  he 
maintained,  that  Christ  set  forth  only  a  part  of  the  knowledge  of  salvation  ;  and 
left  a  part  to  be  explained  by  the  Paraclete,  whom  he  promised  to  his  followers. 
And  he  claimed  to  be  himself  that  Paraclete,  or  that  herald  and  expounder  of 
divine  truth,  promised  by  Christ.  How  Manes  and  his  disciples  wished  to  have 
these  subjects  understood,  must  be  explained  accurately,  and  at  some  length; 
because  both  the  ancients  and  the  moderns  are  sometimes  not  uniform  in  their 
statements,  and  sometimes  disagree  with  each  other,  respecting  the  character  as- 
sumed by  Manes.  Nor  has  Beausobre  brought  forward  all  that  is  worth  consider- 
ing, although  he  says  many  things  very  learnedly,  and  demonstrates  admirably  the 
errors  committed  on  this  subject.  (See  his  Histoire  de  Manichee,  tome  I.  p.  252.) 
Eusebius  (in  his  Historia  Eccles.  L.  vii.  c.  31,  p.  283,)  says  :  Manes  exhibited  him- 
self as  Christ,  or  took  the  form  of  Christ  (Xpia-Tdv  durdv  fxcp^o^ia-d-Ai  eirufSTo.)  And 
many  repeat  the  same  after  him.  The  Orientals  are  more  cautious,  if  i/er^^e/o/  (Bibl. 
Orient,  p.  549.)  correctly  expounds  their  meaning;  namely, that  he  declared  himself 
another  or  second  Christ  or  Messiah  (iin  second  Messie.) — All  these  writers  are  un- 
doubtedly mistaken.  Nor  have  they  any  ground  for  their  accusation,  except  in 
the  number  of  associates  whom  Manes  chose :  for  he  took  the  same  number  of 
companions  and  friends  as  Christ  took  for  his  Apostles.  The  fallacy  of  such  an 
[p.  741.]  argument  need  not  be  pointed  out.  What  the  preceding  writers  expressly 
declare,  A ug-i/s/i??e  only  ventured  to  suspect,  (contra  Epistolam  Manich.c.  8.  0pp. 
tom.  viii.  p.  112;)  Quid  ergo  aliud  suspicer,  nescio,  nisi  quia  iste  Manichseus,  qui 
per  Christi  nomen  ad  imperitorum  animos  aditum  quserit,  pro  Christo  ipso  se  coli 
voluit?  But  he  supports  this  conjecture  by  a  very  weak  argument,  not  worth 
repeating  and  confuting. — Many  others  have  told  us,  that  Manes  chiiraed  to  be 
the  Holy  Spirit.  All  these  have  a  good  excuse  for  making  the  mistake  ;  and 
although  in  error,  they  do  not  deserve  severe  censure.  For  Manes  did  call  him- 
self the  Paraclete;  and  all  his  disciples  denominated  him  either  simply  the  Para- 
cleti,  or  the  Hohj  Spirit,  the  Paraclete :  nay,  as  Augustine  repeatedly  charges 
upon  them,  (in  his  work  contra  Faustum  Manich.)  they  were  accustomed  to 
swear  by  this  Paraclete.  Now,  when  christians  heard  them  take  such  oaths,  with- 
out anything  explanatory,  and  recollected  that,  in  the  scriptures,  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  called  the  Paraclete,  and  that  no  sane  man  swears  by  any  other  than  God  or 
some  essence  cognate  with  God;— who  can  wonder  that  they  supposed  the 
founder  of  this  Manichaean  sect  arrogantly  claimed  to  be  the  Holy  Spirit?  And 


L\fe  of  Manes.  2G3 

those  ancient  doctors,  who  either  said  roundly,  tliat  Manes  claimed  to  be  the 
floly  Spirit,  or  else  confessed,  (as  Angiistim  does,  in  his  work  contra  Epistc  - 
lam  Manicliaii,  c.  17,  and  contra  Faustuni,  Lib.  xiii.  and  elsewiiore,)  Ihat  they 
did  not  knon\''\hi\t  the  Manichceans  meant  by  applying  this  appelhition  to  their 
master,  whether  they  wished  to  indicate  that  Manes  was  himself  the  Holv  Spirit, 
or  only  that  the  Holy  Spirit  resided  in  him  ? — these  writers,  I  say,  in  my  judg- 
ment, committed  no  censurable  ofl'ence.  For,  what  rule  of  duty  does  he  violate, 
who  uses  the  very  terms  of  a  sect  in  stating  their  opinions,  or  who  tells  us,  he 
does  not  know  what  meaning  they  affixed  to  their  terms?  They  offend  but 
slightly,  who  explain  the  appellation  which  Manes  assumed,  and  either  conjec- 
ture or  report  that  the  Manicha^ans  supposed  the  Holy  Spirit  and  Manes  to  be 
combined  in  one  person.  And  the  fault  of  this  misrepresentation  is  chiefly 
chargeable  on  Manes  and  his  followers,  who,  by  obscure  and  ambiguous  lan- 
guage, cause  their  meaning  to  be  misunderstood.  I  see  learned  men  of  our  day 
who  endeavor  to  treat  the  history  of  christians  more  wisely  than  our  fathers  did, 
and  become  wonderfully  copious,  eloquent,  and  energetic,  in  exaggerating  and 
castigating  the  errors,  by  which  the  ancient  christian  authors  have  marred  their 
accounts  of  sects  and  heresies:  but  while  they  show  themselves  equitable 
towards  heretics, — which  is  commendable, — they  not  unfrequently  become  un- 
just to  the  contenders  against  them,  not  reflecting  that  a  great  part,  perhaps  the 
greatest  part,  of  the  faults  which  deform  the  history  of  the  early  sects,  originat- 
ed from  the  obscuritj',  the  ambiguity,  and  the  foreign  and  unusual  phraseology 
of  the  heretics  themselves. — But  let  us  pass  on,  and  see  what  Manes  [p.  742.] 
would  have  those  think  of  him,  whom  he  instructed. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  unquestionable  that  this  Persian  did  not  w^ish  to  be 
accounted  Christ  himself,  but  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  his  Lord.  For  he 
commences  that  celebrated  Epistola  Fundamenti.  against  wiiich  Augustine  wrote 
a  Book,  with  these  words :  Manichaeus  Apostolus  Jesu  Chrlsti  providentia  Dei 
Patris.  Haec  sunt  salubria  verba  de  perenni  et  vivo  fonte.  (See  Augustine,  con- 
tra Epistolam  Manich.  c.  5.  0pp.  torn.  viii.  p.  Ill,  and  de  Actis  cum  Felice  Ma- 
nichaeo,  L.  L  p.  334,  335.)  We  have  also  the  testimony  of  Augustine,  (contra 
Epist.  Manich.  c.  6.  p.  112,  and  contra  Faustum,  L.  xiii.  c.  4.  p.  181.)  that  Manes 
assumed  the  same  title,  in  all  his  Epistles. — But,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  Manes 
did  not  wish  this  title  to  be  understood  in  its  common  and  ordinary  sense,  when 
applied  to  himself,  but  in  a  sense  much  higher.  For  he  placed  himself  far  above 
the  twelve  Apostles  of  Christ,  and  proclaimed,  that  much  greater  wisdom  was 
divinely  imparted  to  him  than  to  them.  When,  therefore,  he  styles  himself  an 
Apostle,  he  intended  thereby  that  he  was  an  extraordinary  man,  far  superior  to 
all  the  first  Apostles,  one  whom  Christ  had  sent  to  mankind,  partly,  to  perfect 
his  religion,  and  partly  to  free  it  from  stains  and  corruptions. 

In  the  next  place,  it  is  certain  that  Manes  did  not  wish  to  be  accounted  the 
Holy  Spirit  personally ;  or  to  have  his  followers  believe,  that  the  entire  Holy 
Spirit  had  descended  into  him,  joined  his  person  to  him,  and  spoke  and  gave 
forth  laws  personally  through  him.  They  who  attribute  such  insanity  to  Maries 
may  be  confuted  by  many  proofs,  and  especially  by  the  Manic-hicaii  doctrine 
concerning  the  Holy  Spirit.    Passing  by  all  the  arguments  which  have  been 


2G4  Ccntimj  III— Section  4.0. 

adduced  by  Beausnhre,  we  will  deinonstrate,  solely  from  the  Epistola  Fundamenti 
of  Manes,  tiiat  he  disting-uislied  between  the  Holy  Spirit  and  himself.  For  thus 
he  speaks  in  that  Epistle,  (apud  Avgustinum  de  Actis  cum  Felice  Manich.  L.  L 
c.  16.  p.  341.)  Pax  Dei  invisibilis  et  veritatis  notitia  sit  cum  fratribus  suis  et 
carissimis,  qui  mandatis  ccelestibus  credunt  pariter  ac  deserviunt :  sed  et  dextera 
luminis  tueatur  et  eripiat  vos  ab  omni  ineursione  maligna  et  a  laqueo  mundi : 
pietas  vero  Spiritus  Sancti  intima  vestri  pectoris  adaperiat,  ut  ipsis  oculis  videa- 
tis  animas  vestras.  Here  Manes  prays  {or,  first,  the  peace  of  the  supreme  Deity, 
or  the  Father,  and,  secondly,  for  the  aid  and  assistance  of  the  Son.  Because,  by 
the  dextera  luminis,  he  means  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  For,  according  to  the 
Manioha?an  system,  the  light  is  God  himself,  the  source  of  all  light:  whence,  in 
Oriental  phraseology,  dextera  luminis  is  ihat,hy  which  the  Z/^'-/;/,  i»  e.  God,  assists 
men,  and  manifests  to  them  his  kindness,  his  love,  and  his  power ;  or  that  per- 
son who  is  nearest  to  God,  and  is  the  minister  of  his  divine  pleasure  and  govern- 
[p.  743.]  ment.  Lastly,  he  prays  for  the  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  For 
He  it  is,  who  must  dispel  the  mental  darkness,  so  that  the  brethren  might  see 
their  souls  with  their  own  eyes ;  that  is,  that  they  might  understand  that  in  them 
was  a  soul,  the  offspring  of  eternal  light,  or  of  God  ;  and  that  they  might  leani 
to  distinguish  it  from  the  darkness,  or  from  the  body  and  the  senses.  Who  does 
not  readily  see,  on  reading  this  passage,  that  Manes  regarded  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  an  essence  cognate  with  God,  and  wholly  diiferent  from  himself?  For  he 
joins  the  Holy  Spirit  with  the  Son  of  God,  and  with  the  Father ;  and  supposes 
his  internal  illumination  to  be  necessary  for  men,  to  enable  them  to  discover  the 
truth  and  divine  origin  of  his  doctrines.  A  man  could  not  so  speak,  who  thought 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  latent  in  himself,  or  that  he  was  himself  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Although  Manes  did  not  wish  to  be  considered  as  being  the  Holy  Spirit,  yet 
he  declared  himself  to  be  that  Paraclete  whom  the  blessed  Saviour,  a  little  be- 
fore his  death,  promised  to  his  disciples.  John  xiv.  16  and  xvi.  7,  &c.  This  is 
apparently  inconsistent  with  the  previous  statements.  For  how  could  a  man, 
who  dared  not  arrogate  to  himself  the  dignity  and  majesty  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  contented  himself  with  the  title  of  an  Apostle  of  Christ, — how  could  he 
claim  to  be  the  Paraclete  promised  by  Christ  ?  But  we  shall  soon  see  that  these 
pretensions  are  easily  reconcilable.  I  confess,  indeed,  that  I  once  doubted  whe- 
ther it  were  true,  that  all  the  Greeks  and  Orientals  really  stated  that  Manes 
required  men  to  believe  him  to  be  the  Paraclete.  Because,  in  the  beginning  of 
his  Epistles,  he  called  himself  only  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Chi-ist,  and  not  the 
Paraclete  I  suspected  that  Manes  probably  thought  more  modestly  of  himself, 
and  that  the  whole  story  of  the  mission  of  the  Paraclete  in  the  person  of  Manes^ 
was,  perhaps,  got  up  by  his  disciples,  who  were  eager  to  exalt  their  master,  and 
to  find  evidence  of  his  high  dignity  in  the  holy  scriptures.  For  I  said  to  myself, 
if  Manes  wished  to  be  considered  the  Paraclete,  why  did  he  not  assume  that  title 
in  his  Epistles?  Why  did  he  style  himself  only  an  Apostle?  Augustine  indeed 
(in  his  Liber  contra  E])ist.  Manichasi,  c.  6.  p.  112.)  would  convince  us,  that  the 
astute  and  crafty  man  aimed  tncitly  to  insinuate,  even  by  the  title  Apostle  of 
Christ,  that  lie  was  the  Paraclete:  Quid  hoc  esse  causspe  arbitramur,  (viz.  that 
he  called  himself  an  Apostle  of  Christ,  and  not  of  the  Paraclete.)  nisi  quia  ilia 


Life  of  Manes.  0(55 

Biiperbia,  mater  omnium  ha3riticoruin,inipulit  homincm,  ut  non  missiun  se  a 
Paracleto  vellet  videri,  sed  ita  susccptiim,  ut  ipse  Paracletus  diceretur.  Tliis  in- 
deed  is  not  offering  proof,  but  is  indulging  conjecture.  Yet  tlie  same  Aufrus- 
iine,  in  another  manner,  removed  all  doubt  from  my  mind  on  this  subject.  For 
he  clearly  testifies,  that  Manes  did  refer  the  promise  of  the  Paraclete  to  himself. 
He  says,  (ubi  supra  c.  7.  p.  112.)  Mnnieha'us  vester,  sivc  missum,  sive  suscep- 
tum  a  Paracleto  se  affirmat.  And  a  little  after,  (c.  8.)  still  more  clearly  :  Spiritus 
sanctus  nominatus  non  est,  qui  mnxlnie  debuit  ab  eo  nominari,  qui  nobis  Apos- 
tolatum  suum  Paracleti  promissione  commendat,  ut  evangelica  auctoritate  impe- 
ritos  premat.  These  words  merit  careful  attention.  For  it  appears  [p.  744.] 
from  them, /rs^,  That  Manes  did  not  call  himself  the  Holy  Spirit :  yet,  secondhjy 
That  he  commended  his  Aposileship,  by  api)lying  to  it  the  promise  of  the  Para- 
clete ;  i.  e.  he  would  have  the  language  of  Christ  concerning  the  Paraclete,  to 
refer  to  him.  From  these  declarations,  I  think  it  manifest,  that  the  man  distin- 
guished the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  Paraclete.  For  one  who  rejects  the  title  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  yet  calls  himself  the  Paraclete,  undoubtedly  shows  that  he  con- 
siders the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  different  from  the  Paraclete.  This  observation  sheds 
great  light  on  the  subject ;  and  it  reveals  the  source  of  the  error  on  this  subject 
of  the  ancients.  By  the  appellation  Paraclete  in  the  language  of  Christ,  Manes 
supposed,  was  indicated,  not  the  Holy  Spirit  personally,  but  a  man  whom  Christ 
would  send,  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  he  expresses  it;  to  whom  the  Holy 
Spirit  (who?e  residence,  he  supposed,  was  in  the  air,)  would  communicate 
greater  wisdom  and  illumination  than  to  the  first  Apostles  of  Christ ;  whereby 
this  man  would  be  able  to  fill  the  blanks  left  by  Christ  in  the  science  of  salva- 
tion, and  expunge  the  errors  introduced  by  men.  Perhaps,  he  confirmed  this 
exposition  by  the  language  in  John  xvi.  15.  He  shall  not  speak  of  himself;  hut 
whatsoever  he  shall  hear,  that  shall  he  speak.  These  words,  considered  by  them- 
selves, seem  more  applicable  to  a  man  taught  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  than  to  a 
divine  being  or  person.  And  previously  to  him,  Monlanus,  who  also  called  him- 
self  the  Paraclete,  and  was  so  called  by  his  followers,  seems  to  have  explained 
the  term  Paraclete  in  the  promise  of  Christ,  in  the  same  manner.  And  it  is  cer- 
tain that  Mohammed,  who,  as  before  stated,  in  many  points  greatly  resembled 
Manes,  claimed  nearly  the  same  authority :  and  it  is  well  known,  that  he  wished 
to  be  accounted  the  Paraclete.  And  hence  Condemir,  the  Persian  historian,  ac- 
cording to  Herhelot,  (Bibliotheque  Orientale  p.  549,)  understanding  the  fact,  was 
indignant  that  Manes  should  apply  to  himself  Christ's  language  respecting  the 
Paraclete,  which,  in  his  judgment,  related  to  Mohammed.  The  disciples  of  Ma- 
nes, to  manifest  this  opinion  of  their  master  concerning  the  Paraclete,  although 
they  commonly  call  him  simply  the  Paraclete,  yet  often  add  the  words  Holy 
-Sp?n7,and  call  Manes  the  Holy  Spirit  the  Paraclete.  This  we  learn  from  Augus- 
tine, in  his  Disputatio  cum  Felice  Manicha30,  and  in  other  places.  The  reason 
they  assign  for  this  double  appellation,  Augustine,  (who  is  not  always  a  favor- 
able expositor  for  them,)  has  stated  in  his  Book  contra  Epistolam  Mnniehrei, 
(c.  8.  p.  112.)  :  Quod  quum  a  vobis  quccritur  ?  (i.  e.  when  you  arc  asked,  Why 
did  Manes  not  call  himself  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Ciirist?) 
respondetis,  utique  Manichao  Apostolo  nominato,  Spiritum  sanctum  i'araclftum 


2G6  Century  III.— Section  40. 

nomin.iri,  quia  in  ipso  venire  dignatus  est.  From  this  language  it  is  manifest, 
first:  That  the  Maniehaeans,  in  order  to  define  the  meaning  of  the  title  of  Para- 
clete, with  which  they  honored  their  master,  called  him  also  the  Holy  Spirit  the 
Paraclete.  And  secondly:  That  they  maintained,  that  this  title  had  the  same 
[p.  745.]  force  and  meaning,  with  the  title  of  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  he 
placed  at  the  head  of  his  Epistles.  And  hence,  thirdly :  According  to  the  opi- 
nion of  Manes  and  his  disciples,  the  Paraclete  is  a  man  sent  by  Christ,  in  whom 
pre-eminently  the  Holy  Spirit  manifests  his  power  and  wisdom  ;  or,  in  their  own 
phraseology,  in  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  (venit)  comes  to  men. — The  Manicha3an 
presbyter  Felix,  in  his  Discussion  with  Augustine,  seems  to  modify  or  change 
this  idea.  For,  although  he  calls  his  master  the  Holy  Spirit  the  Paraclete,  yet  he 
gives  the  same  appellation  to  the  Holy  Spirit  itself;  and  he  affirms,  (p.  338.) 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  the  Paraclete,  among  other  things,  came  also  in  St.  Paul. 
But  this  man,  wiiom  Augustine  (Retractat.  L.  II.  c.  8.)  pronounces  ineruditurn 
liberalibus  lilLeris, — was  timid ;  and  he  acknowledges,  that  partly  from  fear  of  Au- 
gustine, whose  authority  he  well  knew,  and  partly  from  the  terror  of  the  impe- 
rial law3  against  the  Manicheeans,  he  did  not  bring  out  the  whole  system  of  his 
sect,  but  at  times  concealed  some  things,  which  would  be  particularly  offensive  to 
christians ;  and  sometimes  explained  certain  points  differently  from  the  common 
explanation  of  Maniehaeans,  to  make  them  appear  less  offensive.  Thus  he  address- 
es his  adversary,  Augustine,  (L.  I.  c.  12.  p.  339.)  :  Non  tantum  ego  possum  con- 
tra tuam  virtutem,  quia  mira  virtus  est  gradus  episcopalis :  (This  language 
strikingly  shows  what  power  the  christian  bishops  of  that  age  possessed :) 
deinde  contra  leges  Imperatorum,  et  superius  petivi  compendive,  ut  doceas  me, 
quid  sit  Veritas.  This  uneducated  man  expresses  himself  rudely,  and  violates 
the  rules  of  grammar;  but  his  meaning  is  sufficiently  clear.  When  Augustine 
asked  him  to  explain  a  passage  in  a  certain  book,  which  he  called  Thesaurus 
Manetis,  he  replied,  (L.  II.  c.  19.  p.  343.) :  Hanc  tibi  ego  non  possum  interpre- 
tari  scripturam  et  exponere  quod  ibi  non  est :  ipsa  sibi  interpres  est :  ego  non  pos- 
sum dicere,  ne  forte  incurram  in  peccatum.  This  fear  mars  the  whole  discussion 
of  Felix,  and  frequently  leads  him  to  modify  the  Manicha3an  opinions  to  meet 
the  views  of  his  adversaries.  And  therefore  he  can  [not]  always  be  regarded 
as  an  unbiased  and  safe  witness. — The  christian  doctors,  by  the  Paraclete  men- 
tioned by  Christ  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  understood  the  Holy  Spirit  the  third 
Person  of  the  Deity  ;  and  indeed  correctly:  but  they  did  not  perceive  that  Ma- 
nes  gave  another  meaning  to  the  term,  and  distinguished  the  Paraclete, — i.  e.  a 
man  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  uses  as  his  instrument, — from  the  Holy  Spirit  him- 
self, who  taught  by  that  man.  And  hence,  when  they  learned  that  Manes  called 
himself  the  Paraclete,  and  was  so  called  by  his  disciples,  they  easily  fell  into 
the  error  of  supposing  that  Manes  assumed  to  be  personally  the  Holy  Spirit, 
or  would  be  thought  to  be  a  man  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  had  anointed  with  him- 
self Says  Eusebius,  (Hist.  Eccl.  L.  vii.  c.  31.)  Tore  (uiv  tdv  TrapaKXurov,  x-at 
duTo  TO  TVivfA'j,  ayicfy  duToi  islvtov  dvaKHfivTrav.  Paracletum  SO,  ipsumque  Spi- 
ritum  sanctum  esse  praedicabat. 

The  ojfice  of  the  Paraclete  whom  Christ  promised,  and  consequently  his  own 
[p.  746.]  office,  according  to  his  scheme,  consisted  principally  in  two  things ; 


Ufe  of  Manes.  2G7 

firsts  in  restoring  the  religion  of  (^inist  to  its  original  pnrity,  or  pnrging  it  from  the 
corruptions  brought  into  it  by  the  base  frauds  or  the  ignorance  of  men ;  and 
secondly^  in  completing  and  perfecting  the  same  religion,  which,  he  maintained, 
Christ  had  left  imperfect,  or  incomplete  in  its  parts.  For,  as  it  was  the  desin-ii 
of  Manes  to  combine  the  christian  religion  with  the  ancient  Magian  or  Persian 
religion,  which  he  imbibed  in  his  youth,  and  many  doctrines  of  Christianity  were 
obstacles  to  his  purpose,  it  became  absolutely  necessary,  that  he  should,  like 
Mohammed^  consider  the  sacred  books  of  the  christians  as  corrupted,  and  should 
hold  that  not  a  few  additions  had  been  made  to  the  christian  system,  which 
were  foreign  from  the  mind  of  Christ.  Let  us  hear  the  language  of  Faustus, 
a  man  of  note,  and  of  no  contemptible  genius,  among  the  followers  of  Manes : 
(in  Augustine,  contra  Faustum  Lib.  xxxii.  c.  L  319.) :  Quid  peregrinum  hoc, 
aut  quid  mirum  est,  si  ego  de  Testamento  novo  purissima  quoeque  legens  et 
mea3  saluti  convenientla,  praetermitto  qua3  a  vestris  majoribus  inducla  fallaciter 
et  majestatem  ipsius  et  gratiam  decolorant  ?  A  little  after,  the  same  eloquent 
and  talented  man  thus  addresses  catholic  christians  :  Soliusne  Filii  Testamen- 
tum  putatis  non  potuisse  corrumpi,  solum  non  habere  aliquid,  quod  in  se  debeat 
improbari  ?  prsesertim  quod  nee  ab  ipso  (Christo)  scriptum  constat,  nee  ab  ejus 
Apostolis,  sed  longo  post  tempore,  a  quibusdara  incerti  nominis  viris,  qui  ne  sibi 
non  haberetur  fides,  scribentibus  qua3  nescirent,  partini  Apostolorum  nomina, 
partim  eorum,  qui  Apostolos  secuti  viderentur,  scriptorum  suorura  frontibus 

indiderunt,  asseverantes  secundum  eos  se  scripsisse,  qua3  scripserint. Quae 

quia  nos  legentes,  animadvertimus  cordis  obtutu  sanissimo,  a3quissimum  judi- 
cavimus  utilibus  acceptis  ex  iisdem,  id  est,  iis,  quae  et  finem  nostram  c-cdificent, 
et  Christi  Domini  atque  ejus  Patris  omnipotentis  Dei  propagent  gloriam,  cetera 
repudiare,  quae  nee  ipsorum  majestati,  nee  fidei  nostras  conveniant.  These  words, 
which  certainly  are  lucid,  teach  us,  among  other  things,  that  Manes  denied  those 
Gospels,  which  the  Christians  approvad  and  accounted  divine,  to  be  the  works  of  the 
Apostles;  because  they  bore  the  superscrij)tions  :  (k*tu  MctTS-a/ov,  katu  Mapicov,) 
According  to  Mattheiv — Mark — Luke — John.  For  he  inferred  from  these  super- 
scriptions, that  by  them  the  writers  meant  to  signify,  that  they  wrote  what  was 
taught  respectively  by  these  Apostles.  These  blemishes,  tiierefore,  adhering 
to  true  Christianity,  according  to  Manes,  the  Paraclete,  i.  e.  Manes  himself,  was 
commissioned  by  Christ  to  remove,  and  thus  to  separate  the  true  from  the  false. 
Let  us  again  hear  Fausius,  audaciously  drawing  a  parallel  between  Jesus  Christ 
and  his  master;  (ubi  supra,  c.  6.  p.  321.)  :  Si  Jesus  docet,  pauca  veteris  Testa- 
menti  accipienda  esse,  repudianda  vero  quamplurima:  Et  nobis  Paraclitus  ex 
novo  Testamento  promissus  perinde  docet,  quid  ex  eodem  accipere  debeamus, 
et  quid  repudiare  :  de  quo  ultro  Jesus,  cum  eum  promitteret,  dicit  in  Evangelio ; 
Ipse  vos  inducet  in  omnem  veritatem,  et  ipse  vobis  annunciabit  omnia  et  [p.  747.] 
commemorabit  vos.  Quapropter  liceat  tantundem  et  nobis  in  Testamento  novo 
per  Paraclitum  (i.  e.  Manes)  quantum  vobis  in  vetere  licere  ostenditis  per  Jesum. 
More  of  the  like  character  is  there  added  by  Fauslns,  which  we  omit  for  the 
sake  of  brevity, — As  to  the  other  function  of  the  Paraclete,  there  is  abundant 
evidence.  Let  us  consider  this  function.  Manes  wished  to  connect  with  Chris- 
tianity the  fictions  of  the  ancient  Persians,  respecting  two  (ir.st  principles  of  all 


268  Century  IIL—Sectlon  40. 

things,  the  origin  of  the  world  and  of  evil,  the  souls  of  men,  «Sic.  and  to  palm 
them  on  UKUikind  as  divine  truths.  And  this  design  required  him  to  te.aeh,  that 
Christ  communicated  to  liis  Apostles  only  a  fart  of  the  truth, necessary  to  the 
happiness  of  men  in  this  and  the  future  life,  and  left  the  other  part  to  be  taught 
and  explained  by  the  Paraclete.  We  will  adduce  but  a  single  witness,  yet  an 
unexceptionable  one,  namely,  FelLv,  who  was  one  of  the  number  of  the  Elect, 
as  the  Manichaeans  called  them,  i.  e.  one  of  those  fully  instructed  in  all  the 
mysteries  of  the  sect.  Though  he  does  not  express  himself  very  elegantly, 
yet  he  explains  very  well  the  views  of  his  party.  (Disput.  cum  Augustino,  L. 
i.  c.  9.  in  Aiigustifii  0pp.  tom.  viii.  p.  338.) :  Paulus  in  altera  Epistola  (ss.  1  Cor. 
xiii.  9,  10.)  dicit :  Ex  parte  scimus,  et  ex  parte  prophetamus  :  cum  venerit  autem, 
quod  perfcctum  est,  aholehuntur  ea,  qucc  ex  parte  dicta  sunt.  Nos  audientes  Pau- 
lum  hoc  dicere,  venit  Manicha^us  cum  prajdicatione  sua,  et  suscepimus  eum  se- 
cundum quod  Christus  dixit :  Mitto  vobis  Spiritum  sanctum :  et  Paulus  venit 
et  dixit,  quia  et  ipse  venturus  est  et  postea  nemo  venit :  ideo  suscepimus  Mani- 
cha3um.  Et  quia  venit  Manichajus,  et  per  suam  prsedicationem  docuit  nos  in- 
itium,  mediuni",  et  finem  :  docuit  nos  de  fabrica  mundi,  quare  facta  est,  et  unde 
facta  est,  et  qui  fecerunt :  docuit  nos  quare  dies  et  quare  nox  :  docuit  nos  de 
cursu  solis  et  luna3 :  quia  hoc  in  Paulo  non  audivimus,  nee  in  ceterorum  Apos- 
tolorum  scripturis ;  hoc  credimus,  quia  ipse  est  Paraclitus.  Itaque  illud  iteruni 
dico,  quod  superius  dixi ;  Si  audiero  in  altera  Scriptura,  ubi  Paraclitus  loquitur, 
de  quo  voluero  interrogare,  et  docueris  me,  credo  et  renunico,  (ss.  Manicheeo.) 
We  must  now  speak  of  the  arguments,  by  which  Manes,  while  he  lived  and 
when  dead,  induced  so  many  persons  to  believe  him  to  be  the  Paraclete,  sent 
by  Christ  to  reform  and  to  perfect  the  christian  religion.  These  arguments  are 
manifest,  from  the  passages  just  cited  from  Felix.  Like  his  imitator  Moham- 
med, Mimv.s  made  no  pretensions  tomirncles:  nor  did  those  who  listened  to 
him,  demand  signs  of  him.  He  simply  bid  men  believe,  that  he  was  a  messen- 
ger from  God  :  and  the  doubting  and  such  as  asked  for  evidence,  he  pressed 
with  this  single  argument ;  that  Jesus  Christ  had  promised  the  Paraclete,  to 
perfect  what  he  had  begun,  and  to  acquaint  men  with  what  was  lacking  in  his 
[p.  748.]  system.  Since  Christ  left  the  world,  until  I  came,  no  one  adequate 
for  this  office  has  appeared  ;  no  one  before  me,  has  explained  what  Christ  left 
unexplained — the  origin  of  the  world,  the  cause  of  all  evils,  &c. ;  but  I  have  ex- 
plained all  these  hitherto  unknown  things.  Therefore,  I  am  the  Paraclete, 
whom  Christ  directed  his  followers  to  expect.  And  by  this  single  argument 
tho  Manichffians  defended  themselves,  when  called  on  by  the  christian  doctors 
to  prove,  that  Manes  was  the  chief  Apostle  of  Christ,  or  the  Paraclete.  It  ap- 
pears,  from  the  writings  of  Augustine  against  the  Manichaeans,  and  from  other 
documents,  that  the  christian  disputants  demonstrated,  that  the  Paraclete  whom 
Christ  promised,  in  fact  carne,  when  tlie  Holy  Spirit  descended  upon  the  Apos- 
tles :  Acts  ii.  The  Manicha3ans  denied  that  fact,  on  the  ground  that  none  of 
the  Apostles  had  taught  all  the  truths  that  are  profitable  and  needful  to  men. 
Felix  says,  (in  Augustini  Disput.  cum  Felice,  L.  i.  c.  6.  p.  337.) :  Cum  proba- 
tum  mihi  fuerit,  quod  Spiritus  sanctus  {in  Apostolos  eff'usus)  docuerit  veritatem, 
quam  qua^ro,  illam  {Manetis  discipUnam)  respuo.     Hoe  enim  sanctitas  tua  mihi 


Life  of  Manes.  209 

leg-it,  ubi  Spiritum  sanctum  Apostoli  acceperunt :  et  in  ipsis  Apostoli.s  uiium 
quaero,  qui  nic  doceat  de  initio,  de  medio  ct  de  fine  :  (i.  c.  tlie  whole  of  ivli<rion 
or  the  whole  science  of  salvation.)  And  he  repeats  llu;  snnie  things  a  little 
after,  thus  ;  Quia  sanctitas  tua  hoe  dieit,  quod  Apostoli  ipsi  aeeeperunt  Spiri- 
tum sanctum  Paracletum  :  iterum  dico,  de  Apostolis  ipsis  quem  volueris,  decent 
me  quod  me  ManicliKUs  docuit,  aut  ipsius  doctrinam  evacuet  de  duodecim 
quem  volueris.  All  the  pretensions  of  Manes,  therefore,  rested  on  this  argu- 
ment :  He  who  explains  the  deficient  topics  in  Christ's  religion,  is  the  Paraclete 
whom  Christ  promised  :  but  Manes  docs  this  :  therefore  he  is  the  Paraclete  and 
Apostle  of  Christ.  Nothing  can  be  more  fallacious,  nothing  more  imbecile, 
than  this  argumentation ;  and  yet  many  persons,  and  some  of  them  neither 
simpletons  nor  unlearned,  were  persuaded  by  Manes  and  his  disciples;  and 
this  single  example  shows,  in  what  darkness  the  human  mind  is  involved,  and 
how  easily  popular  schemes  of  religion,  accommodated  to  vulgar  apprehension, 
may  entrap  men. 

(3)  In  the  first  place,  Manes  rejected  the  entire  Old  Testament ;  as  did 
nearly  all  the  Gnostic  parties,  who  deformed  the  Christian  religion  by  the  pre- 
cepts of  the  Oriental  philosophy.  The  arguments  \vith  which  the  Manichaijins 
assailed  the  Old  Testament,  are  exhibited  in  a  long  array,  by  Faustus,  the  i\Ia. 
nichffian,  in  AugiLstines  work  against  him ;  and  still  more  fully  and  learnedly* 
by  Beausohre^  (in  his  Histoire  de  Manichee,  vol.  i,  p.  269,  &c.)  The  chief  argu- 
ment is  this  :  The  things,  which  the  books  of  the  O.  Test,  state  concerning  God, 
do  not  accord  with  the  good  Principle  of  the  Manichteans,  which  they  denomi- 
nate God. — In  the  next  place,  they  rejected  the  whole  New  Testament,  as  it  is 
read  by  Christians.  They  did  not  indeed  deny,  that  in  most  of  the  books  of 
the  N,  Test.,  there  are  some  things  that  are  divine  and  came  from  Christ  [p.  749.] 
and  his  Apostles:  but  among  these  things, they  contended,  are  interwoven  very 
many  false  things,  and  things  wholly  impious.  Hence  they  inferred,  that  those 
things  only  in  the  N.  Test,  are  intitledto  belief,  which  are  in  accordance  with  the 
decisions  oi  Manes  their  master,  the  reformer  of  Christianity  whom  Christ  has  sent : 
every  thing  else  is  to  be  rejected. — But  these  ideas  need  a  more  full  explana- 
tion, so  that  it  may  appear,  in  what  sense  we  must  understand  the  affirmation 
of  Beausobre,  (vol.  i.  p.  291.)  that  the  Manichasans  received  our  four  Gospels 
and  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  For  here,  too,  this  great  man  was  influenced  some- 
what by  his  excessively  kind  feelings  towards  the  Manicha3ans  and  towards  all 
heretics. 

First :  As  to  our  four  Gospels,  there  were  two  opinions  among  the  Mani- 
chaeans,  closely  allied  to  each  other,  and  practically,  or  in  their  efiects,  alto- 
gether alike.  Sometimes  they  seem  to  admit,  or  rather  do  admit,  these  Gos- 
pels to  be  of  divine  origin  ;  but  they  soon  take  back  what  they  granted,  and 
contradict  it.  For  they  add,  that  these  Gospels  are  wretchedly  corrupted,  and 
interpolated,  and  enlarged  and  amplified  with  Jewish  fables,  by  crafty  and  men- 
dacious persons.  Whence  it  would  follow,  that  as  they  now  are,  they  are  of  no 
use  or  value,  and  should  be  kept  out  of  the  hands  of  the  pious,  lest  they  should 
be  imbued  with  noxious  errors.  At  other  times  they  deny,  nio.st  explicitly,  that 
the  Apostles  of  Christ  were  their  authors,  or  that  they  were  written   by  those 


270  Centimj  III.— Section  40. 

Apostles  whose  names  they  bear.  On  the  contrary,  they  contend  that  the  au- 
thors of  them  were  half-Jews,  and  credulous  and  mendacious  persons.  This  I 
have  already  shown,  from  a  passage  of  FausLus ;  and  it  may  be  shown  by  many 
other  passages.  I  will  adduce  only  one  of  them,  embracing  the  substance  of 
all,  taken  from  Augustine's  work  against  Faustus,  (L.  xxxiii.  c.  3.  p.  329.)  : 
Sccpe  jam  probatum  a  nobis  est,  nee  ab  ipso  (Christo)  haec  (Evangelia)  sunt, 
nee  ab  ejus  Apostolis  scripta :  sed  multo  post  eorum  assumptionem  a  nescia 
quibus  et  ipsis  inter  se  non  concorduntibus  semi-Judseis  per  fiunas,  opinionesque 
comperta  sunt :  qui  tamen  omnia  eadem  in  Apostolorum  Domini  conferentes 
nomina,  vel  eorum,  qui  secuti  Apostolos  viderentur,  errores  iic  mendacia  sua 
secundum  eos  se  scripsisse  mentiti  sunt.  Between  these  two  opinions  respecting 
the  Gospels,  the  Manichceans  fluctuated  :  and  even  Faustus  is  not  uniform  in 
his  statements,  but  seems  to  incline,  now  to  one  opinion,  and  now  to  the  other, 
as  occasion  offers.  It  was  undoubtedly  their  real  opinion,  that  the  Gospels 
were  fabricated  by  fallible  men,  and  men  unacquainted  with  true  religion.  But 
as  this  opinion  was  odious,  they  sometimes  dissembled,  and  pretended  not  to 
repudiate  those  Gospels,  which,  in  reality,  they  wholly  despised.  And  with 
such  conduct,  several  of  the  ancients  reproach  them.  But  both  opinions  lead 
to  the  same  consequences  ;  and  both  show,  that  the  Manichsean  sect  was  very  far 
from  receiving  our  Gospels.  For  how  could  those  who  thought  so  injuriously 
of  the  Gospels,  or  of  their  authors,  recommend  them,  or  even  place  them  among 
[p.  750.] — I  will  not  say,  inspired  books,  but  among  the  useful  and  profitable 
books  ?  In  particular,  they  considered  the  greatest  part  of  the  history  of  Jesus 
Christ,  as  contained  in  our  four  Gospels,  to  be  false,  imaginary,  and  wholly  un- 
worthy of  the  majesty  of  the  Son  of  God.  Let  us  again  hear  Faustus,  lucidly 
explaining  the  views  of  his  sect,  in  the  work  of  Augustine  against  him  :  (L. 
xxxii.  c.  7.  p.  322.)  :  De  Testament©  novo  sola  accepimus  ea,  quae  in  honorem 
et  laudem  Filii  majestatis  vel  ab  ipso  dicta  comperimus,  vel  ab  ejus  Apostolis, 
sed  jam  perfectis  ac  fidelibus,  dissimulavimus  cetera,  quae  aut  simpliciter  tunc 
et  ignoranter  a  rudibus  dicta,  aut  oblique  et  maligne  ab  inimicis  objecta,  aut 
imprudenter  a  scriptoribus  aflirmata  sunt,  et  posteris  tradita  :  dico  autem  (mark 
these  declarations,)  hoc  ipsum  natum  ex  foemina  turpiter,  circumcisum  Judaice, 
sacrificasse  gentiliter,  baptizatum  humiliter,  circumductum  a  diabolo  per  deserta, 
et  ab  eo  tentatum  quam  miserrime.  His  igitur  exceptis,  et  si  quid  ei  ab  scrip- 
toribus ex  Testament©  vetere  falsa  sub  testificatione  injectum  est,  credimua 
cetera,  praecipue  crucis  ejus  mysticam  fixionem,  (from  this  language  it  appears, 
that  the  portion  of  Christ's  history  which  they  did  receive,  they  did  not  under- 
stand literally,  but  mystically  and  allegorically,)  qua  nostras  animae  passionis 
monstrantur  vulnera,  tum  praecepta  salutaria  ejus,  turn  parabolas  cunctumque 
sermonem  deificum,  qui  maxime  duarum  praeferens  naturarum  discretionem  (we 
shall  misunderstand  Faustus,  if  we  suppose  he  here  refers  to  the  two  natures 
in  Christ,  and  the  difference  between  them  :  the  Manichaeans  assigned  to  Christ 
only  one  nature,  viz.  the  divine :  the  human  nature  they  wholly  subtracted. 
The  two  natures,  of  which  Faustus  here  speaks,  are  the  two  Principles  of  the 
Manichaeans,  light  and  darkness,  the  more  subtile  and  the  grosser  kinds  of  mat- 
ter,) ipsius  esse  non  venit  in  dubium.     Hence  also  they  rejected  the  two  Gene- 


Ufe  of  Manes.  271 

alogies  of  Christ,  in  Matthew  and  Luke:  of  which  Faustus  has  much  to  aay, 
(L.  ii.  c.  1.  p.  133  &,c.) — The  Discourses  of  Jesus  Christ  recorded  in  our  four 
Gospels,  Fauatiis  seems  to  approve  :  but  beware,  of  supposing  lie  really  did  so. 
Manes  acknowledged,  indeed,  tiiat  in  these  discourses  of  Christ  some  tliiiiirs  aro 
true,  divine,  and  useful  ;  but  he  also  contended,  that  in  them  the  good  is  mixed 
up  with  the  bad.  the  true  with  the  false,  and  that  prudence  and  judgment  aro 
necessary  to  discriminate  them.  This  again,  Faustus  will  tell  us :  (L.  xxxiii. 
c.  3.  p.  329.)  :  Nee  immerito  nos  ad  hujusmodi  scripturas  (he  speaks  of  the  N. 
Testament)  tarn  inconsonantes  et  varias  nunquam  sane  sine  judicio  et  rationo 
aures  airerimus  ;  sed  contemplantes  omnia  et  cum  aliis  alia  conferentes,  perpen- 
dimus  utrum  eorum  quidque  a  Christo  dici  potuerit,  nocne.  Multa  enim  a  ma- 
joribus  vestris  eloquiis  Domini  nostri  inserta  verba  sunt,  qute  nomine  signata 
ipsius  cum  ejus  fide  non  congruant.  To  distinguish  tlie  true  and  the  good  from 
what  they  considered  the  false  and  fictitious  in  the  Gospels,  and  in  the  [p.  751.] 
New  Test,  generally,  the  Manichaeans  adopted  this  universal  rule :  Whatever 
in  the  New  Test,  accords  with  the  doctrine  of  our  master,  is  to  be  accounted 
true ;  and  whatever  disagrees  with  it,  (and  there  is  very  much  that  does  so,) 
must  be  reckoned  among  the  fictions  and  fiilsehoods  of  the  writers.  Faustus 
states  this  rule  in  the  following  terms,  (L.  xxxii.  c.  6.  p.  321.)  ;  Paraditus  ex 
novo  Testamento  promissus  docet,  quid  accipere  ex  eodem  debeamus,  et  quid 
repudiare. — These  things  being  so,  I  can  never  persuade  myself,  that  Manes 
placed  a  high  value  on  our  Gospels,  or  recommended  their  perusal  to  his  fol- 
lowers. And  yet  the  learned  Beausohre  would  so  persuade  us :  (vol.  i.  p.  291. 
Nos  heretiques  recevoient  premierement  les  quatre  Evangiles.)  And  this,  he 
thinks,  is  manifest  from  the  answer  of  Faustus  to  the  question  :  Accipis  Exan- 
gelium  ?  The  reply,  as  stated  by  Augustine,  (contra  Faustum  L.  ii.  c.  1.  p.  133.) 
is:  Maxime.  For  i^eawsoire  supposes  the  word  E v angel ium  in  this  reply  of 
Faustus,  agreeably  to  its  use  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  writers,  means  the  four 
histories  of  Christ,  which  we  call  the  Gospels :  (Par  I'Evangile  on  entend  Ic 
Volume,  qui  contenoit  les  quatre  Evangiles.  C'est  le  style  des  Grecs  et  des 
Latins.)  But  the  great  man  is  certainly  mistaken.  I  admit,  that  the  adversary 
who  asked  the  question,  so  understood  the  term  :  but  Faustus,  in  his  reply, 
affixed  a  very  different  meaning  to  it.  Nor  does  he  disguise  the  fact,  but  freely 
acknowledges  it  a  little  after,  by  saying  :  Scias  me,  ut  dixi,  accipere  Evan- 
gelium,  id  est,  p-ccdicationem  Christi :  (of  course,  not  the  history.)  In  the  same 
manner  he  explains  the  term  in  other  passages.  In  L.  v.  (c.  i.  p.  139.)  his  ad- 
versary again  asks  :  Accipis  Evangelium  7  And  Faustus,  among  other  things 
which  I  omit,  answers :  Nescis,  quid  sit,  quod  Evangelium  nuncupatur.  Est 
enim  nihil  aliud,  quam  prccdicatio  et  mandatum  Christi.  This  Gospel,  he  says, 
he  receives.  The  Manichseans,  therefore,  did  not  understand  by  the  Gospel 
our  volume  of  Gospels,  but  the  religion  taught  by  Christ :  and  as  they  believed 
this  religion  to  be  divinely  communicated  only  to  their  master,  it  is  evident, 
that  they  considered  the  Gospel  to  be  nothing  different  from  the  religious  f=ys- 
tera  of  Manes.  And  hence  Titus  of  Bostra,  (L.  iii.  contra  Manicha^os,  in  II. 
Canisii  Lectt.  Antiquis,  tom.  i.  p.  139,  edit.  Basnagii,)  very  justly  charges  upon 
the  Manichaeans  :  Quod  honorem  tantum  Evangeliorum  simulent,  ut  esset  si- 


272  Century  III— Section  40. 

mulatio  invitnmcntuni  corum,  quos  deciperent,  quod  lectionem  Evangeliorutn 
praetermittiiut :  "'£.vdiyyt\ia  avayvuo-n  7ru[>A7ref^7rovm,  qiiod  in  locum  Evangelii 
aliud  eo  nouiinc  indignum  substituant,  &c.  Beausobre  censures  this  language 
of  Titus  ;  and  maintains,  that  the  Mamch(cans  did  read  the  Gospels.  And  this, 
he  thinks,  appears  from  their  books  still  extant :  (vol.  i.  p.  303.  par  le  pen  qui 
nous  reste  de  leurs  ouvrages.)  And  it  certainly  is  clear,  from  these  books,  that 
[p.  752.]  the  Manicluuan  doctors  did,  privately,  read  and  examine  our  Gospels, 
iust  as  we  read  the  religious  books  of  the  sects  which  go  out  from  us :  neither 
did  Tilus  deny  this,  nor  could  he  do  so.  But  he  did  deny,  that  the  Mani- 
cheeans  publicly  read  or  expounded  the  Gospels  in  their  assemblies,  or  that  they 
read  them  religiously  at  home,  for  the  sake  of  gaining  instruction  or  support 
and  consolation  to  their  minds:  and  neither  of  these  charges  can  be  refuted  by 
their  books  now  extant.  The  Manichaean  doctors  would  have  been  crazy  and 
have  contravened  their  own  precepts,  if  they  had  either  publicly  read,  or  had 
directed  their  people  to  read  those  Gospels,  the  authors  of  which  (as  we  have 
seen)  they  pronounced  to  be  half-Jews,  mendacious,  rash  and  false  assumers  of 
Apostolic  names,  contradictory  to  one  another,  and  destitute  of  divine  illumina- 
tion. But  Beausobre  promises  to  prove,  from  the  language  that  Augustine  puts 
into  the  mouth  of  Faiistus,  (par  cette  reponse  que  S.  Augustin  met  dans  la 
bouche  de  Fauste,)  that  our  Gospels  were  read  by  the  Manichaeans.  But  here 
this  great  man  is  somewhat  in  error.  For  Augustine  does  not  repeat  the  words 
of  Faustus,  nor  does  he  affirm  that  Faustus  thought  that  which  he  attributes  to 
him,  but  he  only  conjectures  what  he  might  say.  His  language  is,  (Lib.  xiii. 
c.  18.  p.  188.):  Hie  forte  (he  therefore  states,  not  what  Faustus  or  the  Mani- 
chaeans did  say,  but  what  they  might  perhaps  say)  dicetis,  sed  Evangelium  de- 
bet legere  jam  fidelis,  ne  obliviscatur  quod  credidit.  I  repeat,  what  I  before 
said  :  The  Manichaeans  would  have  conflicted  with  themselves,  and  would  have 
displayed  consummate  folly,  if  they  had  put  into  the  hands  of  their  people, 
books  which  they  judged  to  be  full  of  lies,  and  the  productions  of  insane  men. 
I  proceed  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  to  which  the  Manichfeans  were  more 
hostile  than  to  the  Gospels.  For  while  they  could  endure  the  Gospels,  because 
they  contained  some  things  true  and  useful,  they  totally  rejected  the  book  of 
Acts.  Thus  Angustine  testifies,  (de  Utilitate  Credendi,  c.  3. 0pp.  tom.  viii.  p.  36.) : 
Si  dicerent,  Scripturas  sive  penitus  abjiciendas  putasse,  tergiversatio  eorum  rec- 
tior,  vel  error  humanior.  Hoc  enim  de  illo  libro  fecerunt,  qui  Actus  Apostolo- 
rum  inscribitur.  Augustine  wonders  at  this:  Quod  eorum  consilium,  cum 
meenm  ipse  pertracto,  nequeo  satis  mirari.  -  -  Tanta  enim  liber  iste  habet,  quae 
similia  sint  his,  qua?  accipiunt,  ut  magna;  stultitiai  mihi  videatur,  non  et  hunc 
accipere,  et  si  quid  ibi  eos  offendit,  falsum  atque  immissum  dicere.  And  he  sus- 
pects, that  their  utter  aversion  to  the  book  of  Acts,  arose  from  the  declaration 
there  of  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  Apostles;  they  believing  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  came  to  mankind  only  in  the  person  of  their  master.  And  he  re- 
peats the  same  conjecture,  in  his  book  against  AdimantuSy  a  Manichaean, 
(c.  17.  p.  100.):  Acta  isti  non  accipiunt,  quoniam  manifeste  continent  Paracletl 
adventum.  But  they  doubtless  had  other  reasons  also  for  wholly  rejecting  this 
book;  which,  however,  it  is  not  necessary  here  to  investigate. 


Life  of  Manes.  073 

Of  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  they  thought  more  favorably  thin  of  the  other  books 
of  tlie  New  Testament.  When  Faustus  was  asked  by  his  adversary,  [p.  753.1 
(apud  Augusiinum  contra  Faustura,  L.  xi.  c.  1.  p.  155.).  Accipis  Apos/olinnf 
lie  replied:  Maxi}ne.  And  there  are  other  passages  \\'hioh  sliow,  that  they  did 
not  question  the  fact,  tliat  Paul  wrote  tliose  Epistles  which  we  now  read.  But 
if  any  one  pressed  them  with  a  passage  from  those  Epistles,  they  instantly  re- 
plied, that  these  sacred  Epistles  had  been  corrupted  by  nefarious  men.  What 
shall  I  do  to  you,  says  Augustine,  (contra  Faust.  L.  xxxiii.  c.  6.  p.  330.) :  quos 
contra  testimonia  Scripturarum  ita  obsurdefecit  iniquitas,  ut  quidquid  adversura 
vos  inde  prolatiun  fnerit,  non  esse  dictum  ab  Apostolo,  sed  a  nescio  quo,  falsario 
sub  ejus  nomine  scriptum  esse  dieere  audeatis?  That  A-ugustinehQVit  does  them 
no  injustice,  is  manifest  from  the  reasoning  of  Faustus ;  who,  when  reduced  to 
straits  by  citations  from  Paul,  boldly  replies,  (L.  xi.  c.  1.  p.  156.):  Si  fas  non 
est,  Paulum  inemendatum  dixisse  aliquid  unquam,  ipsius  non  est.  He  had  a  little 
before  said:  Aliquid  in  Apostolo  esse  cauponatum.  In  another  place,  (L.  xviii. 
c.  3.  p.  221.)  he  says:  Me  quidem  Manichasa  fides  reddidit  tutum,  qua3  mihi  non 
'cunctis,  quae  ex  Salvatoris  nomine  scripta  leguntur,  passim  credere  per.suasit, 
sed  probare,  si  sint  eadem  vera,  si  sana,  si  incorrupta:  (i.  e.  accordant  with  the 
opinions  of  Manes ;)  esse  enini  permulta  Zizania,  qua3  in  contagium  boni  semi- 
nis  Scripturis  pene  omnibus  noctivagus  quidam  seminator  insperserit. — The 
opinions  of  the  Manichajans,  respecting  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
are  uncertain. 

In  place  of  our  scriptures,  the  Manichaeans  substituted  the  books  of  their 
master,  declaring  them  to  be  divinely  inspired.     Beausobre,  having  very  fully 
and  very  learnedly  discussed  this  subject,  I  will  refer  such  as  are  eager  for  a 
knowledge  of  it  to  his  work,  vol.  i.  p.  305  &c.     He  might  have  despatched  the 
whole  subject  in  a  few  words;  for  very  little  has  come  down  to  us  upon  it. 
But  the  learned  man  very  often  digresses  from  the  subject,  and  introduces  topics 
altogether  foreign,  and  dwells  upon  them  longer  than  was  necessary.     He  also 
advances  many  things  concerning  the  sacred  books  of  the  Manichaeans,  which  I 
would  not  venture  to  say,  and  which  rest  merely  upon  conjecture.     Manes 
wrote  many  books,  of  which  a  list  is  given  by  Jo.  Alb.  Fabricius,  (Biblioth. 
Grseca,  vol.  v.  p.  281  &c.)  and  by  Wm.  Cave,  (Historia  Literar.  Scriptor.  Eccl. 
torn.  i.  p.  139.)  :  but  both  lists  are  imperfect;  nor  is  that  compiled  by  Deausobre 
without  faults.    That  the  Manichseans  set  a  higher  value  on  the  writings  of  their 
master,  than  upon  any  other  books  named  by  them,  no  one  can  doubt,  if  he  re- 
flects that  they  considered  him  as  the  Paraclete  promised  by  Christ.     No  one 
of  the  books  of  Manes  was  held  by  them  in  higher  estimation  than  his  Epislola 
Fundamenti,  which  Augustine  has  confuted  in  a  single  book ;  for  this  Epistle 
contained  a  sort  of  epitome  of  the  whole  doctrine  of  Manes.    And  hence  Felix 
the  Manichoean,  when  about  to  dispute  with  Augustine,  requested  this  only  of 
all  the  books  taken  from  him  by  the  order  of  government,  to  be  re-  [p.  754.] 
stored  to  him,  (August,  contra  Felicem,  L.  i.  c.  1.  p.  345.) :  Ista  enim  Epistohi 
Fundnmenti  est,  quod  et  sanctitas  tua  bene  scit,  quod  et  ego  dixi,  quia  ipsa  con- 
tinet  initiura,  medium  et  finem,  (i.  e.  the  whole  system  of  religion).    Ipsa  lega- 
tur.    And  (August,  contra  Epist.  Fundamenti,  c.  5.  p.  111.):  Potissimum  ilium 
VOL.  u.  19  V 


274  Century  IIL—Sedion  40. 

consideremus  librum,  quem  Fundamenti  Epistolam  dicitis,  ubi  totum  pene,  quod 
creditis,  continetur.  And  hence,  it  was  read  to  the  people,  in  their  asscmbliea, 
by  the  Maniciu\;ans :  Ipsa  cnim  nobis  illo  tempore  miseris  quando  lecta  est, 
illuminati  dicebamur  a  vobis. 

(4)  The  festal  day,  on  which  the  Manichreans  annually  celebrated  the  me- 
morial of  their  master's  execution,  was  called  Bema  ;  from  the  tribunal^  or  ele- 
vated seat,  which  on  that  day  was  erected  in  their  temples  or  places  of  worship. 
Says  Augustine,  (contra  Epist.  Fundam.  c.  8.  pp.  112,  113.)  :  Vestrum  Bema/\di 
est,  diem,  quo  iManicha^us  occisus  est,  quinque  gradibus  instructo  tribunali  et 
pretiosis  linteis  adornato,  ac  in  promptu  posito  et  objecto  adorantibus  prosequi- 
mini.  And  in  his  work  against  Faustus,  (L,  xviii.  c.  5.  p.  222.)  he  testifies^ 
that  this  day  was  celebrated,  with  great  festivity,  in  the  month  of  March. 
The  tribunal  or  pulpit,  (iS»a**)  a  magnificent  cliair,  hung  with  cosily  drapery, 
undoubtedly  denoted  that  Manes  was  an  inspired  teacher,  and  greater 
and  more  excellent  than  all  the  other  teachers  sent  of  God  to  man;  or,  a  man 
exalted  above  all  other  mortals.  Bii/u*,  among  the  Greeks,  properly  signifies  a 
step:  but  it  is  also  used  of  the  elevated  places,  from  which  military  commanders 
addressed  their  soldiers,  teachers  their  disciples,  and  judges  pronounced  their 
decisions;  for  to  all  these  the  ascent  was  by  steps.  Augustine  translates  it  iri^ 
hunal:  perhaps  it  might  better  be  rendered  a  chair,  a  pulpit.  Yet  the  term  tri- 
bunal is  admissable,  because  the  Manichajans  considered  their  master  as  not 
only  a  teacher,  but  also  as  a.  judge  in  matters  of  religion.  Jac.  ToUius,  (Insign. 
Itinerarii  Itaiici,  p.  142.)  translates  it  an  altar.  But  he  gives  no  reasons  for  this 
interpretation;  which  is  manifestly  opposed  by  Augustine,  a  very  competent 
witness,  who  had  been  often  present  at  this  ceremony.  Beausobre  castigates 
Tollius;  (vol.  ii.  p.  713.) — Why,  the  ascent  to  this  tribunal  or  throne,  represent- 
ing the  presence  of  their  master,  was  by  Jive  steps,  seems  not  very  evident.  But 
I  conjecture,  that  the  five  steps  correspond  with  the  Jive  elements  of  the  Mani- 
chseana.  For  they  distributed  both  the  kingdom  of  darkness  and  the  kingdom 
of  light  into  five  elements ;  and  our  world,  they  supposed,  consisted  of  five  com- 
pound elements,  derived  from  both  kingdoms.  And,  if  I  judge  correctly,  the 
Manicha^ans,  by  the  five  steps  to  the  tribunal  or  pulpit  of  their  master,  intended 
to  represent,  that  he  alone  fully  understood  the  true  nature  of  both  kingdoms* 
[p.  755.]  those  of  light  and  darkness,  and  of  this  our  world ;  and  had  explained 
it  all  to  mankind. — Augustine,  moreover,  speaks  of  the  tribunali  in  'promptu 
•posito;  i.  e.  so  placed,  that  all  present  could  see  it,  and  have  their  eyes  upon 
it;  et  objecto  adorantibus.  What  does  adorantibus  here  denote?  Beausobre 
(ubi  sup.  p.  713.)  thinks  it  equivalent  to  precantibus:  And,  of  course,  he  sup- 
poses, that  the  Manichaians  prayed  to  God,  with  their  faces  towards  this  tribu- 
nal. I  would  readily  concede,  that  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  the  Mani- 
chseans  adored  neither  their  master  nor  his  pulpit.  But  as  for  the  import  of  the 
word  in  this  place,  I  dissent  from  him.  Among  the  Latins,  adorare  was  to  show 
reverence,  by  bodily  attitudes  and  motions,  either  to  gods  or  to  men;  nor  do  I 
see  any  reason  for  believing,  that  Augustine  used  the  word  otherwise  here.  I 
therefore  do  not  doubt,  that  he  means  to  say,  either  that  the  Manichaeans  pros- 
trated themselves,  in  the  Oriental  manner,  before  this  throne ;  or,  that  by  somo 


Manichwan  Dualism.  275 

other  bodily  act,  they  manifested  their  very  great  reverence  for  tlioir  master. 
The  ceremony  was  similar  to  that  of  the  Chinese;  who  salute,  very  respect  fully, 
a  tablet  bearing  the  name  of  Confucius ;  in  order  to  manifest  publielv,  tliat  to 
that  phik^sopher  they  are  indebted  for  all  their  wisdom.  This  was  not  a  religious 
adoration^  but  a  manifestation  of  their  feelings  of  gratitude  and  respect. 

§  XLI.  Two  Eternal  Worlds,  under  Two  Eternal  Lords.  Manes 
affirmed  two  first  principles  of  all  things;  namely,  a  subtile  and  a 
gross  sort  of  matter,  or  light  and  darkness^  separated  from  each 
other  b}^  a  narrow  space.  And  over  each  of  these  he  placed  an 
eternal  King  or  Lord ;  the  Lord  over  light,  he  called  God;  the 
Lord  over  darkness,  he  called  Ilyle^  or  Demon.i^)  The  loorld  of  light 
and  the  world  of  darkness^  although  different  in  their  natures,  have 
some  things  in  common.  For  each  is  distributed  into  five  op- 
posing elements,  and  the  same  number  of  provinces:  and  both 
are  equally  eternal,  and  both,  with  thefr  respective  Lords,  self- 
existent  ;  both  are  unchangeable,  and  both  to  exist  for  ever ;  both 
are  of  vast  extent,  yet  the  world  of  light  seems  to  fill  more  space 
than  the  empire  of  darkness.^)  The  condition  of  the  two  Lords, 
presiding  over  the  two  kinds  of  matter,  is  equal ;  but  they  are 
totally  unlike  in  their  natures  and  dispositions.  The  Lord  of  light, 
being  himself  happy,  is  beneficient,  a  lover  of  peace  and  quiet- 
ness, just  and  wise;  the  Lord  of  darkness,  being  himself  very 
miserable,  wishes  to  see  others  unhappy,  is  quarrelsome,  unwise, 
unjust,  irascible,  and  envious.  Yet  they  are  equal  in  the  eternity 
of  their  existence,  in  their  power  to  beget  beings  like  themselves, 
in  their  unchangeableness,  and  in  their  power  and  knowledge; 
and  yet  the  King  of  light,  or  God,  excells  the  Prince  of  [p.  756.] 
darkness,  or  the  Demon,  in  power  and  knowledge.(^) 

(])  In  substantiating  the  doctrines  and  opinions  of  the  Manichaeans,  I  have 
determined  to  employ  the  very  language  of  Manes  and  his  disciples,  as  far  as 
possible;  and  to  cite  the  testimony  of  those  only,  who  were  well  acquainted 
with  the  Manichaean  system,  and  who  had  actually  consulted  the  books  of  the 
sect,  disregarding  the  writers  of  less  authority  and  less  accuracy;  so  that  my 
statements  may  have  unexceptionable  credibility.  In  collecting  the  testimonies, 
I  gratefully  acknowledge  myself  indebted  to  the  industry  of  Beausobre,  that 
prince  of  the  liistorians  of  Manichaeism.  But  this  resource  has  failed  me,  in 
many  cases ;  a  fact  which  I  mention,  with  no  disrespect  for  that  extraordinary 
man,  who  was  my  friend.  For  he  not  only  omitted  many  things  necessary  to  be 
known,  and  of  use  for  a  right  understanding  of  the  Manichaean  religion  ;  but  also, 
being  too  favorably  inclined  both  to  Manes,  whom  he  deemed  no  mean  philoso- 


276  Century  III.— Section  41. 

phcr.  and  to  his  followers,  he  taxes  his  genius  and  eloquence,  to  extenuate  the 
baseness  of  the  religion  they  professed.  I  shall  sometimes  mention,  when  the 
occasion  shall  seem  to  require  it,  that  the  best  attested  truth  compels  me  to  dif- 
fcf  from  this  very  learned  man :  yet  often,  to  avoid  wearying  the  reader,  I  shall  si- 
lently deviate  from  him.  Whoever  shall  take  the  trouble  to  compare  his  protract- 
ed and  very  copious  work,  with  my  slender  and  dry  production,  will  see,  I  hope, 
a  great  difference  between  them;  and  will  perceive,  that  I  have  examined  with 
my  own  eyes,  and  not  with  those  of  another,  this  gloomy  and  obscure  fable. 
In  the  tirst  place,  it  is  beyond  all  controversy,  that  Manes  affirmed  the  exis- 
tence of  tioo  first  principles  of  all  things,  and  likewise  of  t7i-o  Lords  of  the 
universe  :  in  doing  which,  he  followed  the  opinions  of  the  ancient  Persians  and 
other  Oriental  nations.  The  Manich83ans,  when  they  would  speak  with  preci- 
sion and  accuracy,  applied  the  term  Jirst  principle  (principimn)  only  to  the 
Rulers  or  Lords  over  the  two  kinds  of  matter,  the  good  and  the  evil,  or  light 
and  darkness.  Fausius,  the  most  learned  and  eloquent  of  the  Manichoeans,  says, 
(apud  Augusiinum,  L.  xx.  c.  1.  0pp.  tom.  viii.  p.  237.) :  Pagani  bona  et  mala 
unum  principium  habere  dogmatizant.  His  ego  valde  contraria  sentio,  qui  bonis 
omnibus  principium  fiiteor  Deum,  contrariis  vero  Hylen  :  sic  enim  mali  princi- 
pium  ac  naturam  Theologus  noster  (Manes)  appellat.  And  again,  (L.  xxi.  c. 
1.  p.  249.)  :  Duo  principia  confitemur,  sed  unum  ex  his  Deum  nominamus,  alte- 
rum  Hylen  '  aut,  ut  communiter  et  usitate  dixerim,  Doimonem.  -  -  -  Duo  prm- 

cinia  doeco,  Deum  et  Hylen. Vim  omnem  maleficam  Hylae  assignamus,  et 

beneficam  Deo,  ut  congruit  But  to  denote  the  matter,  good  and  bad,  or  light 
and  darkness,  over  which  those  first  Principles  had  dominion,  they  used  the 
terms  nature  and  sithstance.  So  Manes  himself,  in  his  Epistola  Fundament!, 
[p.  757.]  {a\)ud.  August,  contra.  Epist.  Fundam.  c.  12,  13,  p.  115):  x\usculta 
prius  quae  fuerint  ante  constitutionem  mundi,  ut  possis  luminis  sejungere  notv^ 
ram  ac  tenebrarum.  Haec  quippe  in  exordio  fuerunt,  duce  substantias  a  sese 
divisae.  So  also  Faustus,  and  the  rest  of  them,  often.  And  Augustine,  exactly 
according  to  the  views  of  the  sect,  of  which  he  had  been  a  member,  (de  Haeres. 
c.  46.  tom.  viii.  p.  11.)  says:  Ista  duo  principia  inter  se  diversa  et  adversa,  eadem- 
que  aeterna  ac  coaeterna,  hoc  est,  semper  fuisse,  composuit :  duasque  naturas  ac 
substantias,  boni  scilicit  et  mali,  opinatus  est. — Yet  examples  occur  in  which  this 
distinction  is  overlooked,  and  the  term  Jirst  principle  is  applied  to  matter,  and 
the  word  nature  applied  to  God  and  the  Demon.  I  have  just  cited  a  passage 
from  Faustus,  (L.  xx.  c.  1.  p.  237.)  in  which  he  uses  both  principium  and  na- 
tura  in  reference  to  the  demon.  He  adds,  (L.  xxi.  c.  1.  p.  249.)  :  Nee  diffiteor, 
interdum  nos  adversam  naturam  nuncupare  Deum.  In  a  similar  manner,  they 
use  the  words  light  and  darkness,  w^hich  properly  denoting  the  matter  over  which 
God  and  the  Demon  reign,  yet  sometimes  denote  the  Lords  of  matter,  or  God 
and  Hyle.  This  is  a  minute  criticism,  but  it  will  help  us  to  understand  better 
some  declarations  of  the  Manichseans. 

(2)  Manes  conceived,  that  in  infinite  space,  there  are  two  worlds,  or  two  earths ; 
the  one  shining,  and  overspread  with  light ;  the  other  very  caliginous,  or  full  of 
darkness  and  mists.  In  his  Epistola  Fundament!,  (apud  August,  c.  12.  p.  115.) 
Manes  calls  the  former :  Lucidam  et  beatam  terram  ;  and,  Illustrera  et  sanctam 


Manicha'an  Dualism.  077 

terrain.  The  latter  he  calls,  (ibid.  15  .p.  IIG.)  Tcrram  tenebrarum  :  ondTornun 
pestiferam.  Both  these  worlds  existed  from  eternity  ;  neither  of  them  h:id  a  be<Tiii- 
ning,  or  can  have  an  end,  or  become  extinct.  Of  the  world  of  light  or  the  empire 
of  Cod,  Manes  also  says,  (ibid.  p.  115.) :  Ita  autem  fundata  sunt  ejusdem  (Dei) 
splondidissima  regna  supra  lucidam  et  beatam  terram,  ut  a  nullo  unquam  aut 
moveri  aut  concuti  possint.  These  passages  prove  the  enduring  stability  of  the 
world  of  light.  That  he  believed  the  same  stability  characterized  the  world  of 
darkness,  is  manifest  from  what  he  says  of  the  destruction  of  our  world,  and  the 
events  that  are  to  follow.  For  when  God  shall  have  conquered  the  Prince  of 
darkness,  he  will  not  destroy  his  kingdom:  ilial  is  beyond  his  power,  since  the 
world  of  darkness  has  an  equally  necessary  existence,  with  the  world  of  light. 
But,  as  the  power  of  God  is  greater  than  that  of  the  Ruler  of  darkness,  he  will 
shut  up  the  latter  in  that  realm  of  darkness  of  which  he  is  Lord.  On  the  eter- 
nity of  the  world  of  light  there  is  a  noted  passage  of  Felix  the  Manichaean,  in 
his  Dispute  with  Augustine,  (L.  I.  c.  17.  18.  p.  342.  343.)  Augusihie a&ks  him: 
Fecitne  Deus,  an  genuit,  terram  illam  lucis,  an  aequalis  et  coa^tanea  illi  erat? 
Felix  at  first  replies  evasively,  and  conceals  his  opinion.  For  he  only  proves 
that  there  are  two  worlds:  Duae  terrae  mihi  vindentur  esse,  secundum  quod 
Manichaeus  dicit  duo  regna.  Augustine  declares  himself  not  satisfied,  and 
repeats  the  question.  But  Felix  still  seeks  concealment,  and  strives  to 
elude  the  subject.  For  the  unhappy  man,  then  a  prisoner,  was  afraid  [p.  758.] 
of  the  imperial  laws,  and  of  the  authority  of  Augustine;  as  he  does  not  dis- 
guise. He  supposed,  he  would  be  accused  and  punished  as  a  blasphemer,  if  he 
should  deny  that  heaven,  tl)e  residence  of  God,  was  created  by  God.  But,  be- 
ing pressed  on  every  side,  at  last,  laying  aside  fear,  he  stated  clearly  what  he 
did  believe :  Dixisti  de  terra  ilia,  in  qua  Deus  habitat,  an  facta  est  ab  iilo,  an 
generavit  illam,  an  coaeterna  illi  est.  Et  ego  dico,  quia  quomodo  Deus  aeter- 
nus  est,  et  faetura  apud  ilium  nulla  est,  totum  (cternum.  est.  Augustine,  not  fully 
satisfied,  asks  again :  Non  illam  ergo  genuit,  nee  fecit  ?  And  Felix  answers 
most  distinctly:  Non,  sed  est  illi  coaeterna.  A  little  after,  he  assigns  the  reason 
why  he  does  not  believe  that  the  world  of  light  was  produced  by  God :  Quod 
nascitur,  finem  habet :  quod  innatura,  non  habet  finem.  It  appears  that  from 
this  principle  he  reasoned  thus :  As  the  world  of  light  will  have  no  end,  it  of 
course  cannot  have  had  abeginning:  and,  therfore,  it  was  not  made  or  generated 
by  God.  After  a  few  remarks  not  pertaining  to  our  enquiry,  he  is  again  interro- 
gated by  Augustine :  Hujus  ergo  terrae  (Deus)  non  est  Pater,  sed  Inhabitator? 
And  Felix  unswers  promptly:  Etiam.  Augustine  proceeds:  Ergo  duae  jam  erunt 
res  ambae  ingenitae,  terra  et  Pater  1  To  this  Felix  replies :  Tnnno  ires  sunt, 
Pater  ingenitus,  terra  ingenila,  et  a'er  ingenitus.  Hence,  it  appears,  that  Manes 
assigned  to  the  world  of  light  an  atjnosphere,  or  supposed  that  world  compassed 
with  air,  just  as  ours  is.  That  Manes  supposed  the  same  thing  true  of  the  world 
of  darkness,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  That  world,  therefore,  together  with  lis 
King  or  Lord,  had  existed  from  eternity.  But,  although  both  worlds  have  ever- 
lasting duration  and  permanence,  and  cannot  be  overthrown  or  demolished,  yet 
it  is  possible  that  violence  and  injury  should  be  done  to  them,  or  that  some  por- 
tion of  either  should  be  taken  from  it,  and  that  world  thus  become  diminished. 


278  Century  III.— Section  41. 

This  is  manifest  beyond  all  doubt,  from  the  war  between  the  good  and  the 
malignant  first  Principles,  or  the  Kings  and  Lords  of  the  two  worlds.  For  in 
this  war,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  the  King  of  darkness  subjugated  a  portion 
of  the  elements  of  the  world  of  light,  and  likewise  not  a  few  of  its  inhabitants. 
And  of  the  same  thingvve  liave  the  best  testimony,  that  of  Manes  himself,  in  his 
Epistola  Fundamenti.  (apud  Avgust.  Disput,  cum  Felice,  L.  I.  c«  19.  p.  343.  &c. 
and  in  other  places,)  :  Lucis  vero  beatissiniae  Pater,  sciens  lahem  magnam  ac  vas- 
titalem,  quae  ex  tenebris  surgeret,  adversus  sua  sancta  impendere  Saecula,  nisi 
quod  e.\imium  Numen  opponat.  The  Demon  therefore  could  harm  the  sancta 
Scccula,  or  the  jEo7is  of  God;  and  the  danger  from  this  source  was  to  be  re- 
sisted. The  same  was  true,  unquestionably,  of  the  world  of  darkness.  Such 
was  the  power  of  God,  that  although  he  could  not  subvert  and  annihilate  the 
empire  of  the  Demon,  yet  he  could,  if  he  chose,  invade  it  and  dismember  it. 
But  this  he  would  not  do ;  because,  it  would  have  been  injurious  to  the  tran- 
quillity and  happiness  of  his  own  kingdom,  if  he  had  brought  a  portion  of 
[p.  759.]  darkness  into  it.— Both  worlds  occupied  very  ample  spaces,  or  were 
of  very  great  extent.  Of  the  world  of  darkness.  Manes  himself  says,  (Epist. 
Fundam.  c.  15.  p.  116.  apud  Avgusiinum.) :  Tenebrarum  terra  profunda  et  im- 
mensa  magnitudine.  But  the  world  of  light,  the  Manichaeans  seem  to  have 
made  rather  more  extensive  than  the  realm  of  darkness.  I  gather  this  from  the 
language  of  Augustine,  (contra  Epist  Manichaei,  c.  20.  p.  118.)  ;  Dicantergo,  quid 
adjungebatur  terrae  lucis,  si  ex  uno  latere  erat  gens  tenebrarum  ?  Non  dicunt : 
sed  cum  premuntur,  ut  dicant,  infinita  dicunt  esse  alia  latera  terrae  illius,  quam 
lucem  vocant,  id  est,  per  infinita  spatia  distendi  et  nullo  fine  cohiberi.  Aiayies 
iiimself  had  not  said  this;  for  he  spoke  only  in  general  terms,  of  the  limits  of 
the  two  worlds.  But  his  disciples,  when  hard  pressed,  so  explained  their  mas- 
ter's views  :  and,  indeed,  they  had  reason  so  to  explain  them.  For  he  had  said, 
(in  Epist.  Fund.) :  Juxta  unam  vero  partem  ac  latus  illustris  illius  ac  sanctae  ter- 
rae erat  tenebrarum  terra  profunda.  According  to  his  idea,  only  one  side  of  the 
world  of  light  was  bounded  by  the  world  of  darkness.  Therefore  the  Mani- 
chneans  inferred  that  the  other  sides,  not  being  bounded,  had  no  limits,  but  ex- 
tended into  infinite  space.  From  this,  it  necessarily  follows,  that  the  world  of 
light  is  more  ample  and  extensive  than  the  world  of  darkness.  For  that  thing, 
which  is  contiguous  to  only  one  jiai't  or  side  of  something,  the  other  sides  of 
which, being  unbounded,  are  free  and  without  limits; — that  thing,  undoubtedly, 
is  smaller  or  less  extensive  than  the  thing  to  which  it  is  contiguous  ;  although 
it  may,  as  Manes  says,  immensara  profunditatem  et  magnitudinem  habere,  or, 
may  extend  over  a  very  large  and  unbounded  space. — In  the  world  of  light, 
eternal  peace  and  uninterrupted  happiness  reign.  For  all  its  inhabitants  being 
the  progeny  of  th«  beneficent  nature  of  God,  there  can  be  no  place  for  discord 
and  enmity  among  them :  and  as  all  are  perfectly  happy,  in  their  respective 
spheres,  they  cannot  be  disquieted  or  moved  by  the  desire  of  greater  happiness. 
But  far  different  is  the  state  of  the  world  of  darkness.  For  there,  all  are  con- 
tinually at  war  with  each  other.  Being  naturally  propense  to  broils,  seditions, 
and  discord,  no  solid  and  stable  peace  can  exist  among  them.  Says  Augustine, 
(contra  Faustum  L.  xxi.  c.  14.  p.  254,  255.) :  Ilia  gens,  inquiunt  (Manichaei)  ex- 


Mankhimn   Dualism.  279 

cento  CO,  quod  virinne  luei  m.ln  erat,  et  apud  se  ipsam  m.Ia  crat.-Vastabant 
.e  inviccn,  laedok.nt,  occidebnnt,  absumebant.  (This  must  be  understood  of 
tbe  ani,nals  living  in  tl>e  ir.ngdom  of  darkness,,  of  wl,  eh  wo  are  soon  o  speak. 
For  the  progeny  of  the  Prince  of  darl<ness,  arc  equally  .nunortal  with  the  off- 
BDrim'  of  the  Lord  of  light.)  ,       .    .,         .,        r 

But  the  words  ligU  and  darkness,  used  by  Manes  to  denote  the  .natter  of 
bis  two  worlds,  or  what  they  ealled  the  two  natures  or  .uhslances,  have  not  the 
import  eon,n,only  assigned  them;  namely,  that  one  of  these  worlds  was  com- 
posed intirely  of  light,  and  the  other  wholly  of  darkness.     This  eommon  mis- 
Apprehension,  which  is  found  with  some  very  learned  men,  is  contrary  to  the 
clearest  assertions  and  declarations  of  Manes  and  h,s  disciples.    L,gU[v-  '6«.] 
is  only  one //(A  part  of  the  world  of  light,  and  darkness  is  only  onei/^ft  I».rt  ot 
the  realm  of  darkness.    But  because  light,  from  its  very  nature,  is  dillused 
throu<.hout  one  of  these  worlds,  and  illumines  the  whole  of  it  with  "s  splendor, 
therefore,  that  whole  happy  region,  inhabited  by  God  himself  is  called  l,ga,o, 
the  xoorld  of  light.    And  moreover,  God  is  himself  light ;  and  he  undoubtedly 
diffuses  the  splendor  of  his  nature  throughout  all  the  realm  over  which  he  reigns. 
On  the  other  hand,  as  the  darkwss  from  its  very  nature,  obscures  the  whole  re- 
gion  of  which  it  constitutes  a  fifth  part,  and  spreads  a  sort  of  cloud  over  aU 
fhe  elements  of  it,  that  i^ra  jestfera,  (as  Manes  expresses  it,)  -  -•  «>  " -■^'^ 
or  realm  of  darkness.    Not  that  there  is  no  light  at  all  in  the  world  of  daikness , 
for  it  contains>e,  which  of  course  must  emit  light.     But  the  darkness  in  con- 
tact with  this  fire,  causes  it  to  emit  very  little  light,  and  almost  to  assume  the 

nature  of  darkness.  n  ^i  • 

Manes  distributed  each  of  these  worlds,  from  which  lie  supposed  all  things 
were  formed,  into  ft^e  deme,Us  and  five  provinces.    Of  the  world  of  darkness, 
he  has  left  us  this  full  description,  in  his  Epistola  Fundamenti,  (apud  Augus- 
tinum  c  15  P.  116.)  :  Juxta  unam  vero  partem  ac  latus  illustris  lllius  ac  sanctas 
terr<e  erat  teuebrarum  terra  profunda  et  immensa  magnitudine,  m  qua  habita- 
bant  ignea  corpora,  genera  seilicit  pestifera.     (i.  e.  the   Demons,  with  thoir 
Prince  )     Hie  infinita,  tenebr<c,  (Here  is  the  first  element,)  ex  eadem  manantes 
natura  ina^stimabilescum  proiuiis  fetibus :  ultra  quas  erant  aqua,  c<.«os<c  (the 
second  element)  ac  turbid^  cum  suis  inhabitatoribus ;    quarum  mterius  urm 
horribiles  ac  vehementes  (the  third  element)  cum  suo  Principe  ac  genitoribus. 
Rursnm  regio  ignea  ac  eorruptibilis  (that  is,  which  has  power  to  corrupt,  de- 
stroy,  or  consume  ;  not  that  it  is  itself  corruptible  or  consumable)  cum  suis 
ducibus  et  nationibus :  (_lho  fourth  element.)    Pari  more  introrsum  gens  cal.gzms 
ac  fumi  plena,  (ih.  fifth  element,)  in  qua  morabatur  immanis  Princeps  omii....u  e 
dux,  habens  circa  se  innumerabiles  Principes,  quorum  omnium  ipse  eia    ne  s 
atque  orl™ :  ho^que  fuerunt  nature  quim,ue  terra,  pestifera,     I  will  suVyo  n  a 
exhact  f^om  Avgustine,  (de  H.resibus  e.  46.  p.  11.)  which  throws  light  on 
some  parts  of  this  description  ;  .juingne  eUmenla,  quic  genuerunt  P""  W™' 
prios,genti  tribuunt  tenebrarum ;  eaque  elementa  h^»  nominibus  i  uncupant. 
fumum,  tenehras,  ignem,  a,uam,  rerUum.     (This  is  -/'-"-';  f„,,';Pn,,' 
and  does  uot  clearly  and  fully  exhibit  the  opinion  of  Mmes     A  gus  ne  a,,o 
chan.'cs  the  order  of  the  elements.)     Ufumo  nata  anim:.ha  bipedia,  uiidu  ho- 


280  Century  IIL—Section  41. 

mines  duccre  origincm  censent,  in  tenehris  serpentia,  in  igne  quadrupedia,  in 
aquis  natutilia,  in  xento  volatilia.  See  also  Avgusline  against  Faustus,  (L.  ii„ 
c.  3.  pp.  133,  134.) — We  will  elucidate  these  whims  a  little.— The  world  of 
darkness  is  like  an  immense  dwelling  house,  which  is  five  stories  higli,  and  each 
[p.  761.]  story  having  its  own  elementary  matter,  its  Prince,  its  inhabitants,  and 
its  animals ;  the  last  all  venimous  and  noxious,  and  resembling  our  noxious 
animals.  In  each  story,  therefore,  we  may  distinguish /aur  things  :^rs/,  the 
elementary  matter;  secondly,  the  Prince  who  presides  over  the  province; 
third! y,the  subordinate  rulers  who  aid  the  Prince  in  the  government;  and  lastly, 
the  animals  corresponding  with  the  several  elements.  The  elements  themselves 
are  fecund,  or  have  the  power  of  generation;  foY  Augustine  says:  Suos  sibi 
Principes  gennerunt.  Nor  does  he  pervert  the  views  of  Manes ;  for  we  have  a 
passage  of  his,  which  confirms  what  Augustine  says,  in  Titus  Bostrensis, 
(contra  ]Manich<3eos,  L.  i.  in  Canisii  Lectt.  Antiquis,  tom.  i.  p.  68.)  :  ^Hv  yhfi  ttots 

^naiv,  OTS   «   vK»   HraKTHyKui  iyevvsL  nai  iiu^dnTO,  Kai  S'liiTeXst  TroXXa;  Trpo^AWofAivn 

•Tt/vciyMgK.  Erat,  inquit  Manichseus,  (doubtless  in  his  Liher  Mysteriorum,  which 
Titus  had  read ;)  tempus,  cum  materia  sine  ordine  ferebatur,  et  generabat  et 
crescebat,  ac  raultas  potestates  producebat.  Those  Princes,  therefore,  or  the 
Governors  of  provinces  in  the  world  of  darkness,  neither  existed  necessarily  and 
from  eternity,  nor  were  they  the  offspring  of  the  King  of  darkness.  Whether 
the  inferior  magistrates  also  originated  from  the  elements,  or  were  the  progeny 
of  the  Princes,  seems  to  be  doubtful.  Yet,  I  suspect,  they  were  begotten  by 
the  princes:  for  the  supreme  Lord  of  darkness  generated  his  own  subordinate 
commanders  and  ministers;  and  it  is  probable,  that  the  Governors  of  provinces 
possessed  the  same  powders.  Besides,  Manes  makes  express  mention  of  births 
in  the  realm  of  darkness.  The  first  animals  that  inhabited  the  several  stories  of 
the  edifice,  undoubtedly,  were  the  product  of  the  elements  in  which  they  lived. 
And  these  propagated  their  species,  in  the  same  manner  that  our  animals  do. 
This  will  very  clearly  appear  from  a  passage  soon  to  be  cited.  The  inferior  ele- 
ments produce  only  the  imperfect  animals;  and  the  more  exalted  the  elements 
are,  the  more  perfect  are  the  beings  they  produce.  The  highest  element  pro- 
duces the  most  perfect  animals,  namely,  those  most  resembling  human  beings. — 
The  inhabitants  of  all  the  stories  are  continually  warring  and  fighting  with  each 
other;  and  animals,  which  are  mortal,  also  devour  and  consume  one  another. 
Manes  says,  (apud  Titum  Bostrcns.  ubi  supra,  p.  70.) :  '■H^ayvcv  xat  xjtT»V3-/oy 
it  i'^  duTMf  dXX>;Ao/?,  Sliva.  jtai  "^rfhiTra  S^tnTXaevTig.  Qui  ex  malitia  nati  sunt,  se 
mutuo  insectati  sunt  et  devoraverunt,  dura  et  gravia  passi.  More  might  be  said 
on  these  points,  but  it  is  not  necessary.  I  proceed  rather  to  a  consideration  of 
the  elements  themselves,  on  which  some  remarks  may  not  be  useless.  Augustine 
has  much  to  say  of  them,  (contra  Epist.  Fundamenti,  e.  28.  p.  122.)  but,  as  he 
too  often  is,  he  is  more  harsh  and  energetic  than  was  necessary;  nor  did  he 
understand  the  nature  of  these  elements. 

The  lowest  element,  and  that  which  produced  reptile  animals,  was  tenebraoi 
infinitcc  ;  that  is,  wide  and  infinitely  extended  darlcness.  But  Manes  did  not,  as 
commonly  supposed,  understand  by  the  word  darkness,  what  we  do,  the  mere 
[p.  762.]  absence  of  light;  for,  infatuated  as  he  doubtless  was,  he  was  not  so 


Manichccaii  Dualism.  281 

infatuated  as  to  believe  that  daikness,  in  tlie  proper  sense  of  the  word,  can  bo 
ranked  among  elementary  substances.  And  tiie  Manichteans  themselves,  (apud 
Avgiisi.  loco  citato,  p.  124.)  denied,  that  their  darkness  was  the  same  as  ours: 
Non  tales  erant  illai  tenebra3  quales  hie  nosti.  Manes  wrote  in  Syriac,  as  wo 
learn  from  T/Z».s  Bostrensis ;  and  perhaps  his  Latin  translator  did  not  adeijuately 
express  his  meaning.  The  darkness  of  Manes  was,  undoubtedly,  earth;  which 
being  opaque,  and  emitting  no  light,  might  be  called  darkness.  This  is  not  only 
manifest  from  the  earthly  and  reptile  animals  generated  from  this  darkness,  but 
the  thing  itself  shows  it.  For  unless  by  darkness  Manes  meant  earth,  he  ex- 
cluded earth  from  among  tlie  elements;  which  is  altogether  incredible,  and 
would  be  foreign  from  his  views.  For  his  superior  world  had  the  same  number 
of  elements,  and  of  the  same  kinds,  as  our  world  has;  and  that  earth  is  one  of 
the  elements  of  our  world.  Manes  and  all  the  Persians  believed.  Therefore, 
from  this  immense  mass  of  earth,  destitute  of  all  light,  arose,  according  to  Ma- 
nes,  ina:,stimabiles  (i.  e.  innumerable)  naturae  (for  thus  doubtless  it  should  read, 
instead  of  natura,  as  in  the  copies  of  Augustine,)  and  moreover,  fetus,  (i.  e.  the 
proper  animals  of  the  earth,  serpents,  vipers,  worms,  insects,  and  all  that  are 
destitute  of  feet  and  creep  upon  the  ground.) — Adjacent  to  earth  or  darkness, 
was  the  element  of  loater ;  filled,  in  like  manner,  with  its  appropriate  inhabitants. 
But  this  tvater  was  not  pure  and  limpid;  it  was  polluted  by  the  contiguous 
earth,  and  therefore  turbid  and  dark-colored. — The  third  element,  adjacent  to 
the  water,  was  loind;  which  likewise  had  its  Prince,  its  generators,  and  its  ani- 
mals, namely,  birds;  yet  not  beautiful,  harmless,  and  singing  birds,  but  such  as 
were  savage  and  ferocious.  Beware  also  of  supposing  that  Manes  understood 
by  wind,  what  we  understand  by  it,  namely,  a  strong  motion  of  the  air.  He  was 
a  senseless  man,  yet  not  so  senseless  as  to  account  motion  an  elementary  body, 
giving  birth  to  various  material  beings.  His  wind  was  air ;  yet  air  obscured 
with  clouds,  and  immensely  and  vehemently  agitated.  This  appears  from  the 
thing  itself,  and  also  from  the  animals  which  lived  in  the  wind,  for  they  were  all 
aisrial. — Above  the  wind  was  the  fourth  region,  which  comprised ^ire,  the  fourth 
element.  Here  lived  those  quadrupeds  whose  natures  most  resembled  JirCy 
vvhich  destroys  and  consumes  objects  :  namely,  savage  beasts,  lions,  tigers,  ele- 
phants, bulls,  and  panthers.  To  the  gentler  animals,  and  those  serviceable  to 
mankind,  such  as  sheep,  cows,  horses,  &.c.  I  suppose,  he  did  not  assign  a  place 
in  the  world  of  darkness.  The  Manicha3ans  being  asked,  (apud  August,  loco 
cit.  c.  32.  pp.  12-1,  125.)  why  their  master  placed  quadrupeds  in  the  region  of 
fire,  replied:  Quod  quadrupedes  edaces  sint ;  (this,  I  suppose,  "means  rajyaciow."?, 
voracious,  inclined  to  bite,)  ei  in  concuhitum  mullum  ferveanl. — The  highest  and 
most  elevated  of  the  elements,  the  fifth  in  number,  but  the  first  in  rank,  was 
smoke;  in  which  resided  the  Prince  of  the  whole  world  of  darkness,  [p.  763.] 
encompassed  with  avast  multitude  of  jprinces  and  dukes,  who  were  his  offspring. 
It  appears  strange,  that  Manes  should  place  among  the  elements,  and  above  all 
the  others,  smoke,  which  is  merely  a  vapor,  elicited  and  dislodged  from  burning 
bodies:  and  still  more  strange,  that  the  King  of  the  whole  realm  of  d;irkness 
should  dwell  in  smoke;  and  that  the  animals  produced  from  smoke  should  be 
more  perfect  than  any  others;  for  they  resembled  men  in  form,  were  bipeds,  and 


282  Century  III— Section  41. 

they  generated  men.  Says  Augustine,  (contra  Faustum,  L.  xxi.  c.  1  4.  p.  256.) : 
Illi  prineipi  non  tantum  sui  generis,  id  est,  bipedes,  quos  parentes  hominum  dici- 
tis,  sed  etiam  cuncta  animalia  ceterorum  generura  subditi  erant  et  ad  ejus  nutum 
convertebantur.  And  hence  he  ridicules  this  fifth  element,  (contra  Epistolain 
Munich,  c.  32.  p.  125.)  and  says:  Bipedes  fumus  offocat  atque  necat.  -  -  At  hie 
fumus  bipedes  suos — vitaliter  atque  indulgenter  educaverat  et  continebat.  But 
I  can  suppose  there  was  no  just  cause  for  his  ridicule.  Perhaps,  the  Latin  trans- 
lator of  the  Epistola  Fundamenti,  did  not  understand  the  meaning  of  the  Syriae 
word  used  by  Manes.  Those  better  acquainted  with  the  Syriae  language  than 
am,  can  judge.  But  I  may  safely  say,  that  such  smoke  as  ours,  was  not  in- 
tended by  Manes,  but  a  material  substance  more  suitable  for  procreating  animals 
superior  to  all  others.  The  smoke  of  Manes  was,  undoubtedly,  that  element 
which  was  considered  the  first  by  the  ancients,  and  wliich  they  called  ether ;  or, 
as  Cicero  describes  it,  (de  Natura  Deor.  L.  ii.  c.  36.)  :  extrema  ora  atque  deter- 
minatio  mundi,  complexus  coeli  omnia  cingens  et  coercens,  ardor  coelestis.  This 
may  be  inferred  from  the  fact,  that  it  is  contrasted  with  air ;  as  we  shall  pre- 
sently see.  But  this  element,  being  in  the  world  of  darkness  like  the  rest,  was 
contaminated  and  corrupted;  and  having  a  resemblance  to  smoke,  it  might  be 
called  smoke.  Pure  genuine  ether  is  thin  and  transparent;  but  this  was  dense, 
turbid,  dark,  and  cloudy.  These  remarks  go  to  show,  why  the  malignant  Lord 
of  the  dark  world  dwelt  in  this  element  as  his  home. 

Correspondent  with  these  five  elements  in  the  pestiferous  world,  there  are 
five  elements  in  the  world  of  light,  and  arranged,  doubtless,  in  the  same  order ; 
yet  they  are  salutary,  beautiful,  benign,  and  replete  with  happy  and  beneficent 
inhabitants.  Says  Augustine,  (de  Hseres.  c.  46.  p.  H.)  the  Manichaeans  teach: 
His  quinque  dementis  malis  debellandis  alia  quinque  elementa  de  regno  et  sub- 
stantia Dei  (Here  is  some  mistake.  The  substance  of  God,  as  we  shall  see,  was 
the  purest  light,  with  no  admixture  of  any  other  substance.  Therefore,  these 
elements  are  not  composed  of  the  substance  of  God,  but  only  of  the  empire  of 
God)  missa  esse,  et  in  ilia  pugna  permixta,  fumo  a&ra,  tenebris  lucem,  igni  malo 
ignem  bonum,  aquae  mala3  aquam  bonam,  vento  malo  ventum  bonum.  There  is 
also  much  said  by  Augustine  respecting  these  five  celestial  elements,  in  his  work 
against  Faustus,  (L.  xi.  c.  3.  and  L.  xx.  c.  9.)  But  he  does  not  arrange  these 
[p.  764.]  elements  in  their  proper  order.  The  last  and  lowest  element  in  the 
kingdom  of  God,  is  light.  And,  as  it  is  opposed  to  the  darkness  in  the  kingdom 
of  darkness,  it  undoubtedly  is  a  material  substance,  resembling  earth,  yet  white 
and  colorless,  shining,  pellucid,  and  thin.  Manes  calls  it  Lucidam  ac  beatam 
terram,  (in  his  Epistola  Fund,  apud  August,  c.  13.  p.  115.)  And,  because  the 
splendor  of  this  element  is  diffVised  through  the  whole  realm  of  God,  therefore 
this  realm  is  pronounced  splendidissimum. — Next  came  good  water;  that  is, 
water  pure  and  limpid,  free  from  ail  earthly  particles  and  feculency ;  for  the  evil 
water  was,  as  Manes  says,  ccenosa  et  turbida. — The  third  element  was  good  wind; 
that  is,  air  moving  gently  and  placidly,  and  tempering  agreeably  the  heat  pro- 
duced by  the  inferior  light  and  the  superior  fire. — This  was  followed  by  good 
-fire;  which,  as  it  is  opposed  to  igni  corruptibili,  i.  e.  to  devouring  and  consum- 
ing fire,  unquestionably,  only  warms,  revives,  and   fecundates,  like   the   fire 


Manichccan  Dualism.  283 

of  the  Fun,  nnd  does  rot  consume  and  destroy. — The  uppermost  clomcnt, 
conlrnstod  with  the  smoke,  was  air ;  not  that  which  is  moved,  and  wMiich  Manes 
called  lo'md;  but  the  purest  and  most  refined  ether,  encompassing  and  embracing 
the  whole  realm  of  light. — Of  the  Princes  and  the  animals  of  these  five  provinces 
of  the  world  of  light,  I  find  no  where  a  description.  But  as  the  world  of  light 
was  the  counterpart  of  the  world  of  darkness,  I  doubt  not,  that  Manes  assigned 
to  each  of  these  elements  its  Prince,  its  magistrates  and  inhabitants,  and  also 
its  foetus,  or  animals. 

You  may  say,  these  are  whims,  and  more  suitable  for  old  w'omen  and 
cliildren.  than  for  a  man  of  sense.  I  grant  it:  they  are  so.  Yet  they  have  their 
grounds  and  reasons  in  the  first  principles  of  the  Manichaan  doctrine;  and 
therefore  the  man  did  not  trifle,  but  reasoned  consequentially  from  his  premises. 
Like  the  Persians  and  many  others  among  the  ancients,  (as  appears  from 
Apuleius,  de  Mundo,  §  29.)  Manes  supposed  this,  our  world,  to  be  composed  of 
J? re  elements,  earth,  water,  fire,  air,  and  ether.  And  one  of  his  fundamental  doc- 
trines was,  that  our  world  is  a  compound  of  the  commingled  elements  of  I  he  tioo 
upper  worlds,  the  good  and  the  evil.  For  he  despaired  of  accounting  for  the 
existence  of  evil,  unless  he  admitted  two  first  principles  above  us,  from  the 
commingling  of  which  this  our  world  originated.  Hence,  this  reason, — if  a  ne- 
cessity resulting  from  an  assumed  dogma  may  be  called  a  reason, — this  reason,  I 
say,  led  him  to  suppose  the  worlds  above  to  be  composed  of  the  same  elements  as 
ours  is,  and  those  elements  arranged  in  much  the  same  order  as  we  here  behold 
them.  If  he  had  assigned  any  other  constitution,  either  to  the  world  of  light, 
or  to  the  world  of  darkness,  he  could  not  have  accounted  for  the  condition  of 
our  world,  and  the  changes  which  occur  in  it. 

(3)  That  the  founder  of  the  Manichaean  sect  inculcated  the  belief  of  two 
Deities  or  Gods,  is  declared  by  most  persons,  both  ancient  and  modern.  But 
the  erudite  Beausohre  is  dissatisfied,  and  contends  earnestly,  that  they  [p.  765.] 
believed  indeed  in  two  first  Principles,  but  by  no  means  in  two  Gods.  (See  his 
Histoire  de  Manichee,  tome  i.  p.  488.)  He  relies  chiefly  on  the  authority  of 
Faust  us ;  (apud  August,  contra  Faust.  L.  xxi.  c.  1.  p.  250.)  who,  being  interro- 
gated: Unus  Deus  est,  an  Z)mo  .^  quickly  replied :  Plane  unus :  and  then  in- 
veighed severely  against  those  who  explain  otherwise  the  doctrine  of  his  sect. 
He  said :  Nunquara  in  nostris  quidem  assertionibus  duorum  Deorura  auditum 
est  nomen.  -  -  Est  quidem  quod  duo  Principia  confitemur,  sed  unwn  ex  his 
Deum  vocamus.  -  -  Quapropter  inepta  haec  et  viribus  satis  effeta  est  argumen- 
tatio.  Augustine  strenuously  confutes  Faustus  :  but  he  fails  to  satisfy  Beau- 
sohre, who  afliirms  that  in  this  controversy  Faustus  had  the  best  of  the  argument: 
and  proceeding  still  farther,  he  maintains  that  no  one  of  the  ancient  heretics 
taught  the  existence  of  two  Deities.  I  think  otherwise  ;  and  I  do  not  consider 
them  in  error,  who  declare  that  the  Manicha3ans  preached  two  Gods.  This  in- 
deed, both  Faustus  and  his  learned  patron  have  proved,  that  the  Manichaeans 
applied  the  name  God  to  only  the  good  Principle,  and  not  also  to  the  bad ;  and 
yet  Faustus  does  not  deny,  that  sometimes,  the  Prince  of  darkness  is  also  called 
God  by  the  Manicha3ans :  Nee  diffiteor,  etiam  interdum  nos  adversam  natur.nm 
nuncnpare  Deum,  sed  non  hoc  secundum  nostram  fidem,  verum  juxta  praisump- 


284  Century  III.— Section  41. 

turn  jam  in  onm  nonion  a  cuUoribus  suis.  But  the  question  is  not  about  the 
name,  but  about  tlie  thin<r.  We  commonly  designate  by  the  name  God,  a  being 
who  is  eternally  self-existent,  and  suliject  to  tlie  authority  and  control  of  no 
other  being.  Now,  of  this  character  were  both  the  good  Principle  and  the  evil 
Principle,  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  ManichcBans.  And  therefore,  they 
truly  held  to  two  Gods,  notwithstanding  they,  for  distinction's  sake,  applied  the 
name  God  only  to  the  good  Principle.  And  if  one  should  change  the  definition, 
and  say  ;  God  is  not  only  an  eternally  self-existent  being,  but  also  one  possessed 
of  all  conceivable  perfections,  and  the  cause  of  all  things;  this  would  not 
answer  his  purpose.  For,  according  to  this  definition,  the  Manichceans  held  to 
no  God  at  all ;  because  they  did  not  suppose  their  good  Principle  to  be  abso- 
lutely perfect,  nor  the  cause  of  all  things :  so  that  he  would  not  deserve  the  title 
of  God,  according  to  this  definition.  Yet  I  will  grant,  that  in  a  certain  sense, 
the  Manichoeans  believed  in  but  one  God  :  namely,  they  supposed  that  only 
the  good  Principle  was  to  be  worshipped  and  honored.  And,  therefore,  if  it 
should  be  said,  that  the  Being  whom  all  men  should  religiously  worship  and 
adore,  is  God,  then  the  Manichieans  are  free  from  the  charge  brought  against 
them.  And  yet,  in  another  sense,  they  may  most  justly  be  charged  with  what 
is  called  Dualism  ;  that  is,  with  holding  to  two  Divinities. 

Respecting  the  nature  and  attributes  of  the  good  Principle,  I  purpose  to 
speak  in  the  next  section.  Here  I  shall  only  make  some  remarks  on  the  coinci- 
[p.  766.]  dences  and  the  discrepancies  between  the  good  and  the  bad  Principles, 
and  on  the  character  and  conduct  of  the  bad  Principle. — And  first,  that  the  bad 
Principle  was  co-eternal  with  the  good  Principle,  and  equally  self-existent,  or 
dependent  on  no  antecedent  cause,  is  beyond  all  controversy.  Manes  himself 
says,  (npud    Titum  Bostrens.   L.  i.  p.  87.)  :  ^ot.ra.vas   «v   Trovipdi,  kuI  oun  ttots 

OVK  m,    dii    yap  i)v.      Y^cti    oux.    dn-i    T/vcf    i'V,     i\v   yap.      Kai     pi^a.     «v,    ?«o-t>     Kai     )'u' 

Kvpic;,  xai  dvTdi  h.  I  Will  translate  this  more  clearly  and  accurately  than 
Fi-ancis  Turrian  does,  who  is  not  always  the  best  translator :  Malus  erat  Sa- 
tanas ;  neque  tempus  est,  quo  non  erat :  ffiternus  enim  est,  neque  originem  ab 
aliquo  acccpit.  Necessario  enim  et  per  se  existebat.  Et  erat  radix,  inquit 
Manes,  (who  speaks  in  the  Oriental  style.  Radix  is  equivalent  to  pater  or  geni- 
ior,  one  who  begets  a  numerous  offspring.)  Et  erat  Dominus  (i.  e.  he  had  an 
immense  empire,)  et  idem  erat  (i.  e.  was  immutable,  arid  could  not  become  ex- 
tinct, nor  change  his  nature.) — Secondly,  the  generative  power  of  both  Princes 
or  their  power  of  procreating  beings  like  themselves,  is  immense.  And  there- 
fore each  of  them  has  produced  innumerable  beings  like  himself.  Manes,  in 
his  Epislola  Fundament!,  (apud  August,  c.  13.  p.  115.)  expressly  calls  God  illus- 
irem  patrem  ac  genitorem  (innumerab ilium)  beaiorum  et  gloriosorum  scccnlormn, 
(i,  e.  of  jEons).  More  passages  to  the  same  effect,  will  occur  hereafter.  Of 
the  evil  Principle,  he  says,  (ibid.  c.  15.  p.  116.):  Ilabens  circa  se  innumerabiles 
principes,  quorum  omnium  erat  mens  atque  origo.  The  Demon  was  the  mind 
(mens)  of  all  his  children ;  because  they  received  their  minds  or  souls  out  of 
him,  and  had  malignant  minds,  inclined,  like  his,  to  do  evil. — Lastly,  that  the 
evil  Principle  possessed  an  immensely  fertile  genius,  vast  subtilty  and  sagacity, 
and  consummate  and  amazing  power,  the  plans  which  he  devised,  and  actually 


Mankhccaii  Dualism.  285 

carried  into  effect,  put  beyond  nil  question. — These  are  the  particulars  in  which 
tiie  two  Divinities  were  alike.  But  in  other  respects  they  were  very  unlike. — 
1.  The  essential  natures  of  the  two  Princes  were  tot.illy  ditlerent.  For  God 
was  light,  or  his  essence  was  li^Wit ;  as  we  shall  show  hercafler.  But  the  De- 
mnn  had  a  black  opaque  body,  resembling  smoke,  i.  e.  foul  ether ;  as  we  have 
before  shown  ;  and  hence  he  bore  the  name  of  darkness.  Augustine,  when  he 
was  a  Manichtean,  doubted  whether  the  Demon's  substance  was  earth,  or  was 
air  or  ether.  For  thus  he  writes,  (in  his  Confessions,  L.  v.  e.  10.  0pp.  toin.  i. 
p.  84.)  :  nine  enim  et  mail  substantiam  quandam  eredebam  esse  talem,  et  ha- 
bere suam  molem  tetram  ac  deformem,  sive  crassam,  quam  terram  dicebant,  (It 
appears  from  this  passage,  that  the  Manicha3ans  made  ea.rth  to  be  one  of  the 
elements  of  the  evil  world :  whence  it  follows,  that  what  I  before  stated  is  true, 
viz.  that  the  darkness  of  Manes  was  simply  earth,)  sive  tenuem  atque  subtileni, 
slcut  est  aeris  corpus,  quam  malignam  mentem  per  illam  terram  (tene-  [p.  767.] 
brarum)  repentem  imaginantur. — But  ]I.  the  pious  and  ingenious  man  was  un- 
necessarily in  doubt :  for  Manes  clearly  taught,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the 
Prince  of  evils  dwelt  in  smoke  or  corrupt  ether,  the  counterpart  to  pure  ether 
or  air;  whence,  manifestly,  his  body  was  etherial  or  analagous  to  smoke.  And 
when  Augustine  says,  the  Demon  creeps  (repere)  through  the  whole  world  of 
darkness,  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  Manichaeans ;  he  indicates,  that  tlie 
Demon's  body  was  afiuid;  which  it  might  be,  if  it  were  e/7ier,but  not  if  it  were 
earth. — III.  Grod  was  not  confined  to  any  particular  part  of  the  vi^orld  of  light ; 
but,  like  an  immense  luminary,  he  overspread  and  filled  his  whole  empire.  But 
the  Prince  of  darkness  resided  in  a  single  element  of  his  realm ;  namely,  the 
uppermost,  which  they  called  smoke :  although  his  influence,  as  Augustine  says, 
(repit)  creeps  or  extends  through  that  whole  world.  We  had  before  learned 
the  same  thing,  from  Manes  himself. — IV.  God  had  no  definite  form  ;  or  at 
least,  he  had  not  the  human  form  :  as  we  learn  from  Augustine,  (Confess.  L.  v. 
c.  10.  p.  184.)  For  Augustine  says,  that  he  had  formerly  been  pleased  with  the 
Manichasan  doctrine,  because  it  attributed  to  God  no  human  form.  But  the 
Prince  of  darkness  had  a  body  altogether  similar  to  a  human  body.  Says  Au- 
gustine, (contra  Faustum  L.  xx.  c.  14.  p.  255.)  Illi  principi  non  tantura  sui  gene^ 
ris,  id  est,  bipedes,  quos  parentes  hominum  dicitis,  sed  etiam  cuncta  animalium 
ceterorum  genera  subdita  erant.  The  Demon  was  therefore  a  biped ;  and  he 
also  begat  bipeds  of  his  own  species,  that  is,  resembling  men.  Other  proofs  in 
confirmation  of  this  point,  the  reader  may  easily  collect  out  of  the  citations  yet 
to  be  made.  The  Prince  of  darkness  was,  therefore,  properly,  as  Manes  says, 
immanis  dux,  a  monster,  a  giant  of  immense  bulk,  like  the  Micromegas  of  an 
ingenious  man,  and  like  the  Typhccus  of  ancient  Greece.  Manes  wrote  a  book 
expressly  on  Giants,  rdv  yiyavnm  /ii&Kov,  as  Photius  says,  (Bibliothcca  Cod. 
85.  p.  204.)  In  that  work  he  doubtless  treated  of  the  Prince  of  demons,  and 
of  his  satellites  and  ministers  ;  and  applied  what  the  ancients  tell  us  of  the  war 
of  the  Giants  against  the  Gods,  to  the  conflict  between  the  good  Principle  and 
the  bad. — V.  These  Giants,  procreated  by  the  Prince  of  Giants,  were  of  both 
sexes,  male  and  female  ;  and  they  propagated  their  race,  just  as  men  do,  by 
their  wives.     This  is  manifest  from  a  signal  passage  in  the  seventh  book  of  the 


286  Century  IIL—Section  41. 

Thesaurus  ot  Manes,  which  Augustine  cites,  (de  natura  boni  contra  Manichfeos, 
c.  44.  p.  365.) :  Potestates  (niaUo)  qua?  in  singulis  ca3loruTn  tractibus  ordinatae 
sunt  ex  utroque  sexu  masculoi'um  ac  focininarura  consistunt.  Another  passage, 
proving  clearly  the  same  thing,  will  be  cited  further  on.  Augustine  frequently 
touches  upon  this  subject;  e.  g.  (contra  Faust.  L.  xxi.  c.  10.  p.  253.):  Ilinc 
etiani  prolis  fecunditas  (among  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  of  darkness)  suppe- 
[p.768.]  tebat ;  nam  et  conjugia  tribuunt  eis.  And  the  Prince  of  Darkness  him- 
self had  a  wife,  as  will  appear  further  on  ;  and,  when  a  captive,  he  burned  with 
lust,  and  even  sought  coition  with  a  female  being  of  another  race,  as  we  shall 
see  in  the  proper  place.  But  the  citizens  of  the  happy  world,  are  not  of  differ- 
ent sexes;  and  of  course  do  not  beget  and  bring  forth  children. — VI.  Although 
the  realm  of  the  Prince  of  darkness  is  vastly  extensive,  yet  it  is  narrower  and 
smaller  than  that  over  which  God  reigns.  For  the  world  of  light  is  bounded 
only  on  one  side.  This  I  have  before  showed  :  and  I  now  confirm  it,  by  a  very 
noted  passage  in  Augustine's  Confessions,  (L.  v.  c.  10.  p.  84.):  Quia  Deura 
bonum  nullam  malam  naturamcreasse,qualiscunque  pietas  me  credere  eogebat, 
constituobam  (when  a  Manichsean)  ex  adverso  sibi  duas  moles,  (i.  e.  two  worlds, 
of  light  and  darkness,)  w^rflW2(/ue  injinitam,  sed  malam  angustius,  honam  gran- 
dins.  -  -  Et  magis  plus  mihi  videbar,  si  te,  Deus  meus,  cui  confitentur  ex  me 
miserationes  tuae,  vel  ex  ceteris  partibus  infinitum  crederem,  quamvis  ex  una, 
qua  tibi  moles  mail  opponebatur,  cogerer  infinitum  (so  the  Benedictine  edition 
reads ;  but  most  corruptly.  For  it  is  clear  as  day,  that  for  infiniium,  it  should 
read  finitum)  fateri,  quam  si  ex  omnibus  partibus  in  corporis  humani  forma  te 
opinarer  fiiiiri.  But  whether  the  Manichseans,  when  they  said  the  realm  of  light 
was  (infinitum)  unbounded  on  all  sides  but  one,  and  {finitum)  bounded  on  that 
one  side  only,  used  the  word  infinitum  absolutely,  for  that  which  has  no  limits 
whatever ;  or  only  in  the  sense  of  indefinite,  or  whose  limits  exceed  human 
comprehension  and  measurement ;  I  must  leave  undecided.  The  whole  doctrine 
of  the  Manicha3ans  respecting  the  boundaries  of  both  kingdoms,  is  very  difficult 
to  be  comprehended  ;  nor  could  they  themselves,  when  questioned,  explain  it. — 

VII.  The  Prince  of  darkness  was  wholly  destitute  of  the  moral  virtues,  justice, 
veracity,  benevolence,  &:c. ;  for  he  vexed,  afflicted  and  harrassed  his  subjects, 
and  his  own  children.  But  God,  on  the  contrary,  cherished  his  subjects  and  his 
children  in  every  way,  and  heaped  upon  them  all  the  blessings  he  could. — 

VIII.  The  Demon  undoubtedly  possessed  ingenuity,  subtil ty,  and  a  knowledge 
of  many  things ;  but  in  this  respect,  God  was  superior  to  him  :  as  may  appear 
from  the  simple  fact,  that  God  had  known  the  existence  of  the  realm  of  dark- 
ness, but  the  Demon  and  his  princes,  for  an  infinite  length  of  time,  had  no 
knowledge  of  the  realm  of  light.  Manes  himself  says,  (apud  Titum  Bostrens. 
L.  i.  edit.  Canisii  tom.  i.  p.  70.)  :  'E7retuo-a.vTo  "ctKXyiXoti  iTrAVlard/uivol,  fj^sxf"-  o^" 
TO  pwf  o-^ivcn  £?w/)a(r*v  -  -  dy-vcovvrig  fAiv,  k.  t.  X.  Principes  tenebrarum  non 
prius  desierunt  in  se  ipsos  moveri,  quam  lumen  sero  tandem  viderent,  quod  antea 
ignorahant.  The  Father  of  light  himself  confessed  ih^  power  of  the  Prince  of 
darkness ;  as  Manes  has  informed  us,  in  his  Epistola  Fundamenti,  (apud  Au- 
gust, de  natura  boni,  c.  42.  p.  364.)  :  Lucis  vero  beatissimae  Pater  sciens  labem 
magnam  ac  vastitatem,  quae  ex  tenebris  surgeret,  adversus  sua  sancta  impendere 


The   Good  God  of  Manes.  287 

saecula.  The  General  of  the  race  of  darkness  could  therefore  do  much  [p.  769.] 
harm, — not  indeed  to  the  realm  of  light,  but  to  tiie  sancla  Scccula  of  God,  that 
is,  to  his  holy  JEons.  Yet  the  victory  of  God  over  him,  is  indubitable  evidence 
of  the  inferiority  of  the  Demon  in  power. 

S  XLII.     Nature   and    Attributes  of  the   good   God   or    Principle. 

The  God  wlio  governs  the  world  of  light,  is,  as  it  were,  an  im- 
mense sun:  and  consists  wholly  of  the  purest  light^  much  more 
subtile  than  our  light,  wonderfully  diffused  through  his  whole 
realm.  He  has  twelve  members^  equally  bright  and  splendid ;  and 
an  innumerable  family^  who  abound  in  every  species  of  good 
things.  For  he  had  begotten  from  himself  an  immense  number 
of  most  happy ^S(-t^a/?a  ;  that  is,  immutable  and  enduring  Beings. 
But  though  the  highest  and  greatest  Being,  yet  he  is  finite,  and 
limited  to  a  certain  space ;  and  of  course,  is  not  omnipresent.  His 
natural  powers  also  have  their  limits.  For  he  does  not  know  all 
things,  nor  foresee  future  events,  nor  can  he  accomplish  all  his 
pleasure  ;  and  much  less,  can  he  effect  his  purposes  solely  by  his 
volitions.  But  his  moral  virtues^  his  goodness,  beneficence,  justice, 
sanctity,  and  love  of  truth,  can  be  confined  within  no  bounds,  nor 
be  limited  or  restrained  by  anything. (') 

(1)  As  I  am  about  to  treat  of  the  nature  and  attributes  of  that  good  Prin- 
ciple which  Manes  called  God,  and  in  accordance  with  his  views,  T  will  exhibit 
as  my  pattern  and  guide,  that  description  of  God,  which  Manes  himself  gave  in 
his  Epistola  Fundamenti ;  and  will  illustrate  it  by  testimonies  from  other  sources. 
— In  Augustine^ s  Book  against  the  Epistle  of  Manes,  (c.  13.  p.  115.)  Manes 
says  :  Luminis  quidem  imperium  tenebat  Deus  Pater,  in  sua  sancta  stirpe  perpe- 
tuus, in  virtute  magnificus,  natura  ipsa  verus,  seternitate  propria  semper  exsul- 
tans,  continens  apud  se  sapientiam  et  sensus  vitales :  per  quos  etiam  duodecim 
membra  luminis  sui  comprehendit,  regni  videlicet  propril  divitias  affluentes.  In 
unoquoque  au^em  membrorum  ejus  sunt  recondita  millia  innumerubilium  et 
immeusorum  thesaurorum.  Ipse  vero  Pater  in  sua  laude  preecipuus  magnitu- 
dine  incomprehensibilis,  copulata  habet  sibi  beata  et  gloriosa  Saecula,  neque  nu- 
mero,  neque  prolixitate  a3stimanda,  cum  quibus  idem  sanctus  et  illustris  Pater 
et  Genitor  degit,  nullo  in  regnis  ejus  insignibus  aut  indigente  aut  infirmo  con- 
stitute. Ita  autem  fundata  sunt  ejusdem  splendidissima  regna  supra  lucidam 
et  beatam  terram,  ut  a  nullo  unquam  aut  moveri  aut  concuti  possint.  In  tliis 
magnificent  description  of  God,  some  things  stand  out  clearly ;  namely  the  eter- 
nity of  God,  his  sanctity  or  his  magnificenlia  tirlutis,  as  Manes  speaks,  his  im- 
mutability, his  love  of  truth,  his  wisdom,  and  his  necessary  existence,  [p.  770.] 
These,  therefore,  I  shall  pass  over,  and  confine  myself  to  those  things  wJiich  are 
involved  in  some  obscurity,  or  are  stated  too  briefly. 

I.  Manes  gives  only  a  passing  notice  of  that  light,  of  which  God  is  com- 


288  Centunj  III— Section  42. 

posed,  by  saying  that  the  Lumen  Dei  has  twelve  nierabers.  But  there  are  many 
other  testimonies  at  hand,  which  put  it  beyond  all  doubt,  that  Manes  made 
the  essence  of  God  to  be  the  purest  ligliL  For  he  uniformly  calls  God  fwj,  lu- 
cem,  TO  dvc:,TaTov  f  wj,  svpremam  lucem,  to  dihov  ?wj  lucem  sempiternam.  See 
the  fragments  of  his  Epistles,  inJo.  Alb.  Fahricius'  Bibliotheca  Gra3ca,  (vol.  v. 
p.  284,  285.)  Avgusline,  in  his  Confessions,  (L.  v.  c.  10.  p.  84.)  agreeably  to  the 
views  of  Manichaeans,  whom  he  once  followed,  says:  Ipsum  quoque  Salvato- 
vem  nostrum  tanquam  de  massa  lucidissimcc  molis  iucc  porreetum  ad  nostram 
salutem,  (<iuum  Manichaeus  essem)  putabam.  Most  accurately  expressed  !  For 
Manes  supposed  God  to  be  a  formless  but  splendid  mass  ;  that  is,  light  wholly 
without  form,  and  spreading  over  infinite  space.  Faustus,  (apud  August.  L.  xx. 
p.  237.)  says:  Patrem  quidem  ipsum  lucem  incolere  credimus  summam  ac  prin- 
cipalem,  quam  Paulus  alias  inaccessibilem  vocat. — These  views  of  the  nature  of 
God,  Manes  held,  in  common  with  most  ancient  nations  of  the  East,  with  the 
Gnostics  also,  and  even  with  not  a  few  christians,  who  were  otherwise  orthodox 
in  regard  to  the  Deity.  Whoever,  therefore,  would  form  a  conception  of  the 
happy  world  of  Manes,  must  picture  to  himself  a  world  just  like  our  terraque- 
ous o-lobe,  but  larger,  and  one  in  which  God  supplies  the  place  of  the  sun :  for 
his  heaven  was  like  our  earth,  and  was  composed  of  the  same  elements  as  our 
world,  though  purer  and  nobler:  and  what  the  sun  is  in  our  world,  God  was  in 
the  world  of  light.  And  much  the  same  idea  is  to  be  formed  of  his  world  of 
darkness,  which  was  the  counter  part  to  the  world  of  light.  For  that  world  also 
had  the  form  of  our  world,  and  included  the  same  elements,  though  deteriorat- 
ed :  and  in  the  uppermost  element,  the  ether,  resided  that  most  savage  Giant, 
the  Lord  of  that  world.— But  while  Manes  believed  God  to  be  light,  he  suppos- 
ed this  divine  light  to  differ  from  the  light  which  falls  upon  our  visual  organs. 
The  light  of  God,  as  he  supposed,  is  to  be  apprehended  only  by  the  mind  in 
thinking,  and  not  by  our  senses  or  bodily  eyes.  Titus  Bostrensis,  (contra  Ma- 
nichaeos  L.  i.  p.  72.)  quotes  thus  from  Manes:  Qfov  fAh  Io-tI  pwj  dia-^nTov 
i'iifxiivfyhfA.dL^  dwros  ^i  av  hn  vojjtov,  ovk  dir^nTdv.  Lumen  sub  sensus  cadens 
Dei  quidem  opus  est,  ipse  vero  Deus  lumen  est  intelligibile,  non  sensibile.  And 
Augustine,  who  assails  the  opinions  of  the  Manichaeans  with  all  his  might, 
frankly  owns,  that  they  discriminated  between  the  light  which  is  the  essence  of 
God,  and  that  grosser  kind  of  light  which  meets  our  eyes  :  (contra  Faustum  L. 
XX.  p.  238.)  :  Quando  enim  discrevistis/'/cew,  qua  cernimus,  ab  ea  luce,  qua  in- 
telligimus,  cum  aliud  nihil  unquam  putaveritis  esse  intelligere  veritatcm,  nisi 
formas  corporeas  cogitare,  &c. 

[p.  771.]  n.  Although  this  lucid  mass  of  God,  which  resembled  the  sun,  had 
no  form;  yet,  besides  wisdom  or  the  power  of  understanding  and  judging,  ac- 
cording to  Manes,  it  had  sensus  vitales.  The  import  of  this  language,  can  be 
nothing  but  this ;  that,  although  God  was  destitute  of  a  human  form,  and  con- 
sequently, of  eyes,  ears,  nose,  and  the  other  organs  of  sense,  yet  he  had  the  fa- 
culty of  sensation  and  perception  ;  that  is,  he  could  see,  hear,  percieve,  and  know 
every  object  external  to  him. 

III.  God,  by  these  senses,  as  !Manes  says :  Duodecim  membra  luminis  sui 
comprehendit,  regni  videlicet  proprii  divitias  affiuentes.  Here  he  seems  to  present 


77/ (?   Good    God.  039 

to  ns  a  great  enigma.  The  light  of  God  has  twcke  members.  \Vliat  are  those 
members?  Beaxisobve  co\^]Q^.•X\\ve9,  (vol.  i.  p.  510.)  lliat  we  are  to  understaiid 
by  them  the  twelve  pourrs  of  the  divine  nature,  or  in  the  language  of  philoso- 
piiers,  his  perfections,  which  in  Oriental  phraseology  j\lanes  eall.s  members.  But 
tiiis  conjecture  is,  by  the  very  language  of  Manes,  divested  of  all  semblance  of 
truth.  For  he  says,  God  comprehends  these  members,  by  his  sensus  vilales.  But 
how  could  God,  I  ask,  by  his  sensus  vitales,  that  is,  by  the  power  of  sensation 
and  perception  which  was  in  him,  comprehend  the  peifectioiis  inherent  in  his  na- 
ture ]  How  could  he,  for  instance,  by  his  faculty  of  (sen.sitive)  perception,  com- 
prehend (or  apprehend)  his  wisdom  and  goodness?  Again;  In  each  of  these 
lucmhevs-.Recodita,  sunt  milUa  innunier  ah  ilium  et  immcnsormn  ihesauroriim.  How 
can  this  be  said  of  the  perfections  of  the  divine  nature  ?  Take  whichever  of 
them  you  please,  his  power,  his  justice,  his  goodness;  and  see,  if  there  can  be 
conceived  to  be,  innumerable  and  immense  treasures  in  it?  Lastly;  To  omit 
other  arguments,  Manes  clearly  distinguishes  these  members  of  God,  from  his 
perfections  or  attributes,  from  his  authority,  his  truth,  his  eternity,  his  immen- 
sity.— I,  indeed,  have  no  doubt,  that  these  twelve  members  are  so  many  lucid 
masses,  or  globes,  originating  and  proceeding  from  the  divine  Being;  and  either 
■encompassing  the  happy  world  like  satellites,  or  moving  through  its  interior,  illu- 
minating and  fecundating  it.  For  Manes  calls  them  members  of  the  light  of 
God,  which  God  comprehends  by  his  sensus  vitales;  that  is,  which,  though  sepa- 
rate and  distinct  from  God,  are  yet  seen,  perceived,  and  governed  by  him.  And 
in  each  of  them  are  innumerable  treasures;  viz.  multifarious  specimens  of  the 
divine  wisdom,  power,  and  goodness;  the  riches  of  nature,  of  various  kinds  and 
uses.  Finally  there  were  diviticc  affiuentes,  not  of  God,  hwt proprii  regni  Dei; 
that  is,  from  these  very  splendid  globes,  various  good  things  descended  upon 
the  whole  kingdom  of  God,  and  on  tlie  inhabitants  of  all  its  elements.  And  the 
Prince  of  these  divine  members,  I  suppose,  was  Christ ;  whom  the  Manichauma 
regarded  as  a  light  of  the  second  rank,  proceeding  from  the  most  lucid  mass  of 
God.  For  Manes,  in  his  Epistola  Fundamenti,  calls  him  the  right  arm  of  lights 
as  if  he  were  the  principal  member  of  the  divine  light :  Dextera  luminis  tueatur 
et  eripiat  vos  ab  omni  incursatione  maligna.  On  the  rest  of  the  de-  [p.  772.] 
Bcription,  I  have  nothing  to  say. 

IV.  Copulata  sibi  Deus  habet  beata  et  gloriosa  scccida,  quoe  nee  numero,  ncc 
prolixitate  sestimari  possunt.  In  the  Syriac  of  Manes,  undoubtedly,  was  the 
word  Holam,  for  which  the  Latin  translator  used  Sa^culum,  The  Greeks  ex- 
press it  by  'Atoji/.  By  this  word  the  Gnostics,  and  with  them  Manes,  denoted 
beings  of  a  divine  origin,  and  therefore,  etherial,  immortal,  and  enduring.  We, 
in  scripture  language,  might  call  the  Scecvia  of  Manes  Angels.  These  ^ojis  of 
Manes,  like  their  Parents,  lacked  a  human  form,  and  must  be  conceived  to  bo 
small  shining  masses  or  bodies.  The  JEons  of  the  Gnostics  were  of  both  sexes, 
male  and  female.  But  Manes  admitted  of  marriages  only  in  the  world  of  dark- 
ness ;  and  therefore  his  Scccula  had  no  sexual  distinctions.  They  were  the  off- 
spring  of  God,  or  emanated  from  the  divine  nature.  But  what  Manes  meant 
when  he  said  Deum  esse  in  sancta  sua  stirpe  perpetuum,  I  cannot  satisfactorily 
determine.  He  seems  to  mean,  that  the  progeny  of  God,  or  these  Seecula,  were 
VOL.  IL  20 


290  Century  III— Section  42. 

equally  enduring  and  eternal  with  God  himself,  so  that  the  eternity  of  God  was 
imparted  to  his  offspring.  But  his  meaning  may  be,  that  God  is  alv\  ays  or  for 
ever  generating  new  Siecuhi.  In  like  manner,  I  do  not  understand  what  he 
means,  when  he  says  of  those  glorious  and  happy  Saecula:  Nee  froUxilate  (cslt" 
mart  possunt.  I  can  suppose  he  may  mean,  that  the  magnitude  of  the  Saecuhi 
is  80  great,  that  the  human  mind  cannot  estimate  or  comprehend  it.  Or  can  it 
be,  that  the  jn-olixilas  attributed  to  them,  denotes  abundance  of  gifts  and 
virtues  ? 

V.  While  3Ianes  declares  God  to  be  magnitudine  incomprehensibilem,  lie 
clearly  denied  his  infinity.  For  he  bounded  the  world  of  light  by  the  world  of 
darkness;  so  that  infinity,  immensity,  or  absolute  omnipresence,  could  not  be  at- 
tributed to  God.  The  world  of  darkness^  also,  was  equally  eternnj  and  self- 
existent  with  the  world  of  light;  and,  therefore,  it  could  not  be  subject  to  Godj 
who,  if  he  were  pre&ent  in  that  miserable  and  wretched  region,  would  change 
its  nature,  dispel  its  darkness,  and  bring  joy  and  happiness  to  its  inhabitants:  all 
which,  according  to  Manes,  \yas  impossible.  But  what  need  of  arguments? 
Faustus,  the  most  eloquent  of  the  Manicha^ians,  clearly  states  the  views  of  his 
sect  in  the  following  words,  (apud  August.  L.  xxv.  c.  1.  p.  307.):  Summus  et 
verus  Deus,  utrum  sit  idem  infniitus,  necne,  si  qua3ritur,  de  hoc  vero  nos  boni  et 
mali  contrarietas  breviter  poterit  edocere.  Quoniam  quidem  si  non  est  malum, 
profecto  infinitus  est  Deus:  habet  autem  fineroy  si  malum  est:  constat  autem 
esse  malum:  non  igitur  infinitus  est  Deus:  illinc  enhn  esse  mala  accipinnt  (I 
think,  it  should  read:  incipiunt)  ubi  bonorum  est  finis.  Whetlier  this  pass;ige 
is  to  be  understood  solely  of  the  infinity  of  his  nature  or  essence,  or  also  of  the 
[p.  773.]  infinity  of  his  attributes  or  perfections,  appenrs  doubtful.  The  very 
learned  Beausohre,  (vol.  i.  p.  503  &c.)  who  always  defends  the  Manicha^ans, 
maintains,  that  they  denied  the  infinity  of  the  divine  nature,  by  inclosing  their 
God  within  local  boundaries ;  but  they  admitted  the  infinity  of  his  attributes, 
and  particularly,  they  set  no  bounds  to  his  knowledge  and  his  power.  Of  this 
we  shall  see  presently.  We  here  only  show,  that  Faustus  intended,  this  infinity 
ehould  be  understood  of  both  his  nature  and  his  attributes.  For  in  the  very 
discussion  from  which  the  extract  is  taken,  he  aims  to  prove,  that  the  catholic 
Christians  ascribed  finite  attributes  to  God,  and  therefore  had  the  same  views  of 
God  as  the  Manicha^ans.  The  Christians,  h*  says,  call  God,  the  God  of  Abra- 
ham, of  Isaac,  of  Jacob,  and  the  God  of  the  Hebrews;  they  therefore  limit  the 
power  of  God.  He  adds:  Cujus  autem  finita  potestas  est,  et  ipse  non  caret  fine. 
He  subjoins  other  similar  arguments,  which  are  no  better,  and  winds  up  by  say- 
ing: Hie  si  est  Deus  (Abrahami,  Isaaci,  Jacobi)  quern  colitis,  liquet  ex  hoc  ad- 
modum,  quod  habeat  finem.  Si  vero  infinitum  Deum  esse  vultis,  huic  vos  ante 
rennnciare  necesse  est.  His  reasoning  is  ridiculous;  yet,  it  puts  it  beyond  all 
doubt,  that  he  joined  both  the  kinds  of  infinity  together:  and  respecting  both 
infinities,  there  was  a  discussion  between  orthodox  Christians  and  Manichajans, 
when  the  question  was  put  to  Faustus:  Deus  finem  habet  aut  infinitus  est? 
For  thus  Faustus  reasoned :  Whoever  is  indued  with  finite  attributes,  is  also 
finite  in  his  nature:  And  conversely:  Whoever  is  of  a  finite  nature,  must 
necessarily  have  finite  attributes. 


The  Good  God.  291 

VI.  The  moral  attributes  of  God,  his  love  of  truth,  hia  goodness,  his  justice 
his  beneficeucc,  were  undoubtedly  bouudleas,  according  to  Manich;i;an  principles. 
This  is  manifest  from  the  language  used  by  Manes.  But  his  other  attributes, 
and  especially  his  knowledge  and  power,  beyond  all  controversy,  had  limits.  As 
to  the  limitation  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Manichaean  God,  I  know  not  how  any 
one  can  doubt  it,  who  is  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  war  between  the 
good  and  the  bad  Principle.  The  Prince  of  the  world  of  light  knew  not  what 
was  taking  place  in  the  world  of  darkness,  although  he  knew  that  such  a  world 
existed.  He  did  not  foresee,  that  the  Prince  of  darkness  would  make  war  upon 
him  and  his  kingdom :  for,  had  he  foreseen  it,  he  would  have  erected  barriers 
against  the  assaults  of  the  race  of  darkness,  before  the  war  commenced,  as  he 
did  afterwards.  He  did  not  foresee,  that  the  commander  whom  he  first  sent 
against  the  Demon,  would  be  unsuccessful.  He  did  not  foresee,  that  in  the  eon- 
tlict  light  would  become  mixed  up  with  darkness.  There  are  many  other  speci- 
mens of  the  ignorance  of  this  God;  and  when  I  consider  them,  1  cannot  but 
wonder,  that  this  perspicacious  and  extraordinary  man  should  not  have  thought 
of  them,  but  could  bring  himself  to  believe  this  Deity  to  be  like,  the  God  of 
CIn-istians.  But  love  and  hatred  have  a  mighty  influence. — As  to  the  powei'  of 
this  God :  in  the  first  place,  it  is  very  certain,  that  it  differed  greatly  from  the 
power  of  the  God  whom  we  Christians  worship.  For  our  God  can  effect  what- 
ever he  pleases,  by  his  Jiat,  his  volition,  or  word.  Not  so  the  Manichaean 
God.  He  was  obliged  to  raise  an  army,  in  order  to  resist  the  troops  [p.  774.] 
of  the  Prince  of  darkness,  to  array  force  against  force,  and  wage  a  regular  war. 
The  same  God  could  not,  by  his  own  power,  rescue  the  light  mixed  with  dark- 
ness; but  had  to  resort  to  cunning,  counsel,  sagacity,  in  order  to  recover  his 
property.  Moreover,  all  that  transpired  between  God  and  the  Prince  of  dark- 
ness, shows  his  power  to  be  finite;  for  he  encountered  many  obstacles,  which 
resisted  the  accomplishment  of  his  wishes.  The  philosopher  SimpUclus,  (in  his 
Comment  on  Epiclelus,  p.  164.)  has  shown  at  some  length,  that  the  God  of  the 
Manichaeans  did  not  possess  unlimited  power. — But  the  very  learned  man 
{Bsausohre)  reminds  us,  that  Foriunalus  the  Manichjean,  (Disputatio  cum 
Aiigustino,  0pp.  tom.  viii.  p.  73  &c.)  calls  God  nmnipolent.  This  is  true:  but  it 
is  also  equally  true,  that  the  Manichseans  used  this  word  in  a  far  more  limited 
sense  than  the  Christians  do.  In  their  view,  indeed,  God  can  do  all  things 
which  are  not  contrary  to  nature;  but  these  things  are  numerous.  He  cannot 
exterminate  the  Demon;  he  cannot  destroy  the  kingdom  of  darkness;  he  can- 
not extirpate  evil ;  he  cannot  restore  to  liberty  the  souls  made  captive  by  the 
Demon,  solely  by  his  word  or  volition,  but  he  must  employ  some  artifice  for 
it;  and  finally,  to  pass  by  other  things,  he  cannot  produce  ?natlej\  or  create  a 
thing,  as  we  say,  out  of  nothing.  All  things  that  exist,  from  a  natural  necessity, 
have  existed  from  eternity.  The  God  of  the  Manichaeans,  therefore,  like  the 
God  of  the  Stoics,  was  obliged  to  yield  to  fate  or  necessity. — But,  observes  the 
same  learned  man,  (pp.  605,  606.)  God  could  punish  the  whole  army  of  dark- 
ness, if  he  had  been  disposed;  and  he  could  so  restrain  them,  that  they  could 
neither  efTect  nor  attempt  any  thing  against  him.  But  he  would  not,  because 
this  miserable  race  was  unworthy  of  his  regard.     In  proof,  he  cites  Avgnstine^ 


292  Centurij  IIL—Sectlon  43. 

(contra  Adimantum  Manieh.  c.  7.  p.  85.)  who  acknowledges  that  God,  accord- 
ing to  the  belief  of  the  Manichaeans,  had  prepared  (prccparasse)  an  eternal  prison 
for  the  race  of  darkness.     But  if  this  were  so,  it  would  not  prove  the  power  of 
God  to  be  boundless.    For  it  does  not  follow,  that  he  can  do  everything  ho 
chooses,  because  he  can  hold  a  certain  race  in  check,  and  prevent  their  doing 
harm  to  himself  and  others.    But  the  fact  was  not,  as  the  w^orthy  man  supposes. 
For  if  this  God  liad  possessed  such  power,  he  would  have  pursued  a  difierent 
course  in  his  war  with  the  Demon.    We  see  him  alarmed,  and  raising  forces 
against  the  Prince  of  darkness.     But  his  alarm  and  his  army  were  needless,  if 
he  had  power  to  repel,  to  coerce,  and  punish  the  Lord  of  darkness,  by  a  mere 
volition  or  word.     But  our  learned  author  does  not  quote  truly  the  language  of 
Augustine.    That  father  did  not  write  jjrccparasse,  but  merely  pncparare;  which 
makes  the  sense  very  diflerent.    The  passage  reads  thus;  Ipsi  enim  dicunt, 
Deum  genti  tenebrarum  sternum  carcerem  prccparare,  quam  dicunt  inimicam 
esse  Deo.     From  this  statement,  who  can  make   out,  that  God  could,  if  he 
[p.  775.]  pleased,  have  prevented  the  race  of  darkness  from  issuing  forth  from 
tlieir  dark  world,  and  invading  the  world  of  light,  but  that  he  despised  the  vile 
and  imbecile  rabble  ?    The  sense  of  the  passage  is  this  :  God  now  holds  captive 
the  race  of  darkness,  which  he  has  vanquished,  and  in  due  time  he  will  thrust 
them  into  prison.    The  prison  is  the  world  of  darkness  itself,  into  which  God 
will,  at  the  time  appointed,  compel  them  to  return ;  as  we  shall  see  hereafter. — 
Yet,  not  to  dissemble  anything,  there  is  a  passage  in  the  Epistola  Fundamentiy 
which  escaped  the  learned  man's  research,  and  from  which  it  seems  inferable, 
that  Manes  thought  the  powder  of  God  adequate  to  the  destruction  of  the  smoky 
race  of  darkness.    For  thus  Manes  speaks,  (apud  August  de  natura  boni,  c.  42. 
torn.  viii.  p.  364.) ;  Lucis  vero  beatissimse  Pater,  sciens  labem  magnam  et  vasti- 
tatem,  quae  ex  tenebris  surgeret,  adversus  sua  sancta  irapendere  Saecula,  nisi 
aliquod  eximi'um  et  praeclarum  et  virtute  potens  Numen  opponat,  quo  superct 
simul  el  desiruat  slirpem  tenebrarum,  qua  extincta,  perpetua  quies  lucis  incolis 
pararetur.     But  either  Manes  uttered  this  incautiously,  and  forgetting  the  prin- 
ciples of  his  system,  or  it  must  be  understood  merely  of  the  animals  in  the 
world  of  darkness.    Those  animals  spring  up  and  die ;  so  that  the  race  of  them 
might  seem  to  be  destructible.  But,  as  for  the  Demon  and  his  princes,  although 
God  vanquished  them,  yet  he  did  not  destroy  and  exterminate  them ;  neither 
could  he  destroy  and  exterminate  them,  because  they  had  a  necessary  existence, 
and  were  immortals.    As,  according  to  the  views  of  the  Manichaeans,  God  13 
unable  to  create  a  thing  from  nothing,  so  is  he  unable  to  reduce  to  nothing, 
any  part  or  portion  of  eternal  nature. 

§  XLIII.     The  Manichaean  Trinity.    Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  good  God,  the  Lord  of  light,  although  he  is  one,  simple,  and 
immutable,  yet,  in  a  certain  sense,  is  triple  or  threefold.  For 
after  the  world  was  founded,  he  produced  from  himself  two  Ma- 
jesties, that  is,  two  Beings  like  himself;  by  whom  he  might  both 
save  the  souls  inclosed  in  bodies,  and  gradually  extract  the  por- 


Manichccaii    Trinity/.  093 

tion  of  liglit  and  of  the  good  fire  mixed  with  earth  from  it,  and 
restore  it  to  its  original  statc.(')  The  one  of  these  Beings  is  called 
Christ;  the  other  the  ITohj  Spirit.  Christ  is  a  splendid  mass  of 
the  purest  light  of  God,  self-existent,  animated,  endued  with  wis- 
dom and  reason,  and  having  his  seat  in  the  sun,  yet  communi- 
cating a  portion  of  his  influence  to  the  moon.  Hence  prayers  are 
to  be  directed  to  the  sun  and  moon.f')  Inferior  to  him,  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  also  an  animated  and  lucid  mass,  of  the  same  nature  with 
God  himself,  connected  with  and  resident  in  the  ether  which  en- 
compasses our  globe.  He  not  only  moves  and  illumi-  [p.  776.] 
nates  the  minds  of  men,  but  he  also  fecundates  thi3  earth ;  that 
is,  he  excites  the  particles  of  the  divine  fire  latent  in  the  earth, 
and  makes  them  shoot  up  in  herbs,  and  shrubs,  and  trees,  and 
yield  fruits  useful  and  convenient  for  men.Q  This  whole  doc- 
trine is  derived  from  the  ancient  Persian  system.  And  hence,  all 
that  the  Manichosans  teacli  respecting  a  divine  Trinity,  must  be 
understood  and  explained,  not  in  conformity  with  Christian 
views,  but  in  accordance  witli  the  Persian  principles  respecting 
Mithra  and  the  ether,  to  which  Manes  accommodated  the  Chris- 
tian religion. 

(1)  That  the  Manichaeans  believed  in  a  species  of  Trinity,  or  held  to  two 
Beings  of  the  same  nature  with  God,  subordinate  to  liim,  is  unquestionable. 
Mane.^  himself  not  obscurely  acknowledges  a  Trinity,  in  his  Epistola  Funda- 
menti^  (apud  August.  Disput.  cum  Felice,  I^  i.  p.  341.)  by  salutiug  those  to 
whom  he  wrote,  thus :  Pax  (a)  Dei  invisibilis  sit  cum  fratribus :  «  -  sed  et  (b) 
Dextra  luminis  (his  name  for  Christ)  tueatur  et  eripiat  vos  ab  omni  incursione 
maligna  -  -  pietas  vcro  (c)  Spiritis  sanct'i  intima  vestri  pectoris  adaperiat.  His 
disciples  speak  much  more  clearly.  But  they,  as  is  manifest,  prudently  accom- 
modate themselves  to  the  phraseology  of  Christians,  and  especially  to  the  de- 
crees of  the  Nicene  council,  which  was  after  the  times  of  their  master ;  in  order 
not  to  appear  differing  too  much  from  the  common  views  of  Christians.  For 
when  Constantine  the  Great,  and  so  many  emperors,  had  issued  laws  against 
their  sect,  the  Manichaeans  became  very  considerate  and  provident,  and  they 
clothed  and  concealed  their  sentiments  under  the  usual  phraseology  of  Chris- 
tians, and  in  scripture  language  ;  in  order  to  avoid  odium  as  much  as  possible, 
and  to  show  the  coincidence  of  the  Scriptures  (which,  however,  they  despised,) 
with  their  opinions.  Forlunalus,  who  was  peculiarly  circumspect,  and  was  well 
acquainted  with  the  language  of  the  Bible,  which  was  always  on  his  lips,  says, 
(Apud  Augustinum  Disput.  i.  cum  eo,  p.  69.)  :  Nostra  professio  est,  quod  in- 
corruptibilis  sit  Deus,  quod  lucidus,  quod  inadibilis,  quod  intenibilis  (i.  e.  c.innot 
be  grasped  ^wd.  /ic/cZ/asO,  impassibilis,  aeternam  lucem  et  propriam  inliabitet: 
quod  nihil  ex  sese  corruptibile  (and  therefore  no  material  bodies)  proferat,  nee 


294  Century  Ill.—Section  43. 

tenebras,  nee  daemones,  nee  Satanam,  nee  aliud  adversura  in  regno  ejus  reperiri 
posse  :  Sui  autem  similem  Salvatorern  direxisse.  -  -  -  His  rebus  credimus  et  haec 
est  ratio  fidei  nostrae,  et  pro  viribus  animi  nostri  mandatis  ejus  obteinperare, 
unam  fidem  sectantes  hvjus  Trinitalis,  Palris  et  Filii  et  Spiritus  sancli.     The 
cunning  man  says  much  about  the  oflice  of  the  Son,  which  I  omit  here,  but 
will  cite  in  a  proper  place  ;  while  of  t!ie  Holy  Spirit  he  is  wholly  silent,  till  he 
comes  to  the  end  of  his  speech ;  and  then  he  couples  him  with  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  although  he  had  not  before  been  mentioned.     The  doctrine  of  the  Ma- 
[p.  777.]  nichneans  respecting  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  could  not  explain  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Bible ;  and  therefore  he  thought  best  to  omit  it  and  keep  it  out  of 
sight.     Faustus,  of  the  same  sect,  a  man  of  letters,  courageous  and  self  confi- 
dent, explains  more  boldly  the  nature  of  the  Holy  Spirit :  his  statements  will 
be  adduced  shortly.     At  present,  we  only  consider  what  he  says  of  the  Trinity. 
In  his  Discussion  with  Augustine,  (L.  xx.  c.  1.  p.  237.)  he  says :  Igitur  nos 
Patris  quidem  Dei  omnipotentis,  et  Christi  Filii  ejus  et  Spiritus  sancti  unum 
idemque  sub  triplici  appellutione  Numen  credimus.     He  seems  here  to  accord 
with  those  who  regard  the  three  Persons  in  God,  as  only  three  names  for  one 
God,  discarding  any  real  distinction  of  the  Persons.     But,  what  follows  acquits 
him  of  the  error ;  for  he  very  clearly  inculcates,  that  the   Son  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  are  truly  distinct  from  the  Person  of  the  Father.     Secundinus,  a  very  in- 
genious Manichaean,  and  apparently   very  modest,  whose  long  and  eloquent 
Epistle  is  extant  in  Augustine,  (0pp.  torn.  viii.  p.  369  &,c.)  commences  thus : 
Habeo  et  ago  gratias  ineffabili  ac  sacratissimae  Majestati,  ejusque  primogenito, 
omnium  luminum  (i.  e.  of  all  the  splendid  and  Inippy  Scccula  or  jEo7is)  Regi, 
Jesu  Christo,  habeo  gratias  et  supplex  Sancto  refero  Spiritui,  quod  dederint, 
praebuerintque  occasionem,  qua  ego  securus  salutarem  egregiam  tuam  sanetita- 
tem.     More  proofs  are  not  necessary. — But  this  Manichaean  Trinity  differed 
essentially  from  that  which  Christians  profess  ;  and  a  very  learned  man  certainly 
lost  his  labor,  when  he  attempted  to  prove  that  it  was  altogether  the  Catholic 
doctrine,  except  as  to  the  manifest  inequality  of  the  Persons.     This  will  appear 
further  on.     At  present  only  one  argument  will  be  offered.     It  is,  that  neither 
the  Son  nor  the  Holy  Spirit  existed  anterior  to  this  our  world.     This  is  asserted 
most  explicitly  of  the  Son.  by  Forlunatus,  a  man  generally  cautious,  as  already 
remarked,  and  one  who  either  dissembles  or  explains  artfully  what  might  be 
prejudicial  to  his  sect.     But  in  his  Dispute  with  Augustine  (i.  p.  69.)  he  says  : 
Nostra  professio  est  -  -  Deum  sui  similem  Servatorem  direxisse  (i.  e.  sent  him 
unto   men)  Verhum  natum  a  constitulione  mundi,  cum  mimdam  faceret,  post 
mundi  fabricam  inter  homines  venisse.     Secundinus,  indeed,  in  his  Epistle  to 
Aujrustine,  (tom.  viii.  p.  369.)  calls  Christ  the  first-born  {'primogenUus)  of  God: 
which  would  seem  to  imply,  that  he  existed  before  all  the  jEons.     But  the 
word  is  ambiguous,  as  Augustine  observed  in   his  reply,  (c.  5.  p.  377.)  and 
might,  as  he  says,  denote  the  superiority  of  his  divinity.     For  any  one  may  be 
called  the  first-born,  who  is  the  chief  and  head  of  many  of  the  same  nature  with 
himself,  though  he  be  posterior  as  to  the  order  of  births.     If  the  Son  did  not 
exist  before  this  world,  but  was  born  of  God  at  the  time  the  world  was  made ; 
undoubtedly,  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  was  manifestly  inferior  to  the  Son  in  dignity 


ManiclKxan    Trinity.  095 

and  greatness,  was  not  superior  in  age.  Besides,  the  offices  sustained  by  tho 
Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit, — not  to  mention  also  their  residences,  which  were  no 
older  than  the  worhl, — remove  all  doubt  in  the  case.  For  the  sole  [p.  778.] 
office  of  the  Son  was,  to  restore  to  freedom  the  good  souls  unfortunately  im- 
mersed in  gross  muddy  matter;  and  that  of  tiie  Holy  Spirit  was,  to  aid  iiitclli- 
gent  nn'nds  in  their  upward  aspirations,  and  to  extract  and  separate  the  sparks 
of  the  good  fire  now  mixed  up  with  darkness  or  earth.  Consequently,  if  that 
pernicious  war  between  the  Princes  of  light  and  of  darkness  had  not  occurred, 
producing  the  mixture  of  the  good  and  the  evil,  there  would  have  been  no  need 
of  either  the  Son  or  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  a  great  number  of  souls  being  cajv 
tured  and  carried  of?',  and  the  light  being  commingled  with  darkness,  it  became 
necessary,  that  the  Father  of  light  should  emit  from  himself  and  produce  the 
two  very  powerful  Beings,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  whom  he  might 
gradually  recover  the  captured  part  of  his  realm,  and  restore  it  to  its  pristine 
felicity. 

(2)  Although  Manes  brought  forward  and  used  the  appellation  Christ,  yet 
he  deemed  it  unsuitable.  It  was  Jewish,  and  was  appropriate  to  that  Messiah 
whom  the  Hebrew  nation  expected,  who  was  materially  ditrerent  from  the  Son 
of  God  of  whom  he  conceived.  To  this  purpose,  there  is  a  striking  passage  in 
his  Epistle  to  Odas,  (apud  Jo.  Alb.  Fabriciiun,  Biblioth.  Graeca,  vol.  v.  p.  285.)  : 

'H   (Tg   Tov   XpiTTou   Trpod'nycpia    ovo/uu,   Wr]    x.a.Ta.^p>i(rTiKdvy   ovn  hS'ovi,   iuTi  oua-ias 

r«aatvT<xor.     Appellatio  Christi  nomen  est,  quod  per  abusionem  (as  rhetoricians 
say)  tantum  adhibetur :  (That  is,  it  is  a  term  unsuitable  for  the  thing,  yet  one 
used  because  it  is  common ;)  nee  enira  vel  speciem  (i.  e.  the  class  of  beings,  to 
which  the  Son  of  God  belongs,)  vel  essentiam  ejus  significant.     We  therefore 
see,  why  he  chose,  in  his.  Epistola  Fundamenti,  (as  we  have  before  seen,)  to 
call  the  Son  of  God  DexLeram  Luminh.     For  this  appellation  expressed  the 
nature  and  dignity  of  the  Son,  according  to  his  views.     The  Christ  of  the  Ma^ 
nichseans  was,  as  Fortunalus  says,  like  the  Father,  and  born  of  him.    And  there- 
fore, as  the  Father  was  the  purest  light,  a  light  which  is  conceivable  by  the 
mind,  but  not  apprehensible  by  the  senses,  and  is  destitute  of  any  form  or 
shape ;  so  Christ  also  must  be  a  splendid  or  shining  mass,  and  endued  with  the 
same  attributes  with  his  Parent,  though  inferior  in  degree,  viz.  wisdom,  reason, 
goodness,  munificence.     Flence  Manes,  in  his  Fipistles  published  by  Jo.  Alb. 
Fabricius,  (Biblioth.  Grace,  vol.  v.  p.  284,  285.)  calls  him  :  Tcu  oUicv  ipwTdi  Cior. 
Sempitermcc  Lucis  Filium.     And  he  proves  Christ  to  be  light,  by  the  narrative 
of  his  transfiguration  on  the  mount.     And  that  this  light  is  most  pure,  and  such 
as  cannot  be  felt  or  seen  by  the  eyes,  he  proves,  (in  his  Epistle  to  Cudarns^ 
by  the  fact,  that  when  the  Jews  attempted  to  stone  Christ,  he  passed  through  the 
midst  of  them,  and  was  unseen.    Kit  fx'to-oi  dvTdv  S'uk^mv  Iv^  ^pdro.  And  to  this 
argument,  he  subjoins:   'H  yap  dvKc;  /ucpipn  —  c,pxr»  /uh  oux.  ^k,  i-\nx^<f,riTo  <fi 
oi/<ra|Wdjf,  S'ta    TO  /muS^ifxictv    c^iiv  Kctvaviav  Tiiv   vKiiv  Trpoi  rd  dvKcv.     Forma  ciimi 
omnis  expers  matcriae  neque  videri  poterat,  neque  tangebatur,  quia  materia  nul- 
1am  habet  communionem  cum  eo,  quod  caret  materia.     Therefore,  Augustine^ 
while  a  ^fanichaean,  agreeably  to  the  views  of  his  master,  conceived  of  (.'lirist  a.s 
a  broad  and  extended  light,  preceding  out  and  issuing  from  the  Father,  [p.  779.] 


296  Century  Ill—Seciion  43. 

He  says,  (Confessiones,  L.  v.  c.  10.  0pp.  torn.  i.  p.  84.) :  Ipsura  quoqne  Salva- 
torera  nostrum  unigenitum  tuum  tanquain  de  iiiassa  lucidissimae  molis  tuae 
porrectum  ad  nostram  salutem,  ita  putabam,  ut  aliud  de  illo  non  crederem,  nisi 
quod  possem  vanitate  imagiiiari.  Yet  this  light  of  the  Son,  though  like  that  of 
the  Father,  and  of  course  having,  as  Manes  says  (npud  Fabricium)  :  ^tjtriv  air'\»y 
Kai  dA»3-»i,  simplieem  naturam  et  verara ;  yet  could  be  so  obscured  and  ob- 
structed by  matter,  as  not  to  put  forth  and  exhibit  all  its  energy.  For,  ia  his 
Epistle  to  Zebena,  (apud  Fabricium  1.  c.  p.  284.)  when  assigning  a  reason  why 
the  Son  of  God  assumed  among  men  a  human  form,  he  says  it  was,  tvu.  ««  (jpui) 

xoiT«3-«  S'la  THf   cva-iai  t«c    orufKos,   Kai   ird^'iiy   «ai   (pd-Ap-d-Hy   Tii?   cntoTj'as   (p^'Upiva-tit 

duToy  T«v  ive^yiia.v  t«v  (fceTuvtiv.  Ne  lux  comprelienderetur  ab  essentia  carnis  et 
pataretur  ac  corrumperetur,  tenebris  operationem  lueis  corrumpentibus.  This 
is  very  explicit.  There  was,  therefore,  a  great  difference  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  although  the  latter  had  the  like  nature  with  the  former.  For,  aa 
the  Manichaeans  often  inculcate,  the  light  of  the  Father  could  not,  in  any  de- 
gree, be  contaminated,  impaired,  or  weakened,  by  the  darkness :  but  the  light 
of  the  Son,  if  surrounded  by  matter  or  by  material  bodies,  suffered  some  dimi- 
nution, and  was  prevented  from  imparting  all  its  efficacy  to  others.  In  what- 
ever manner  he  explained  this  matter,  it  is  certain  that  Manes  considered  the 
light  of  the  Son  as  inferior  to  the  light  of  the  Father. 

Christ  or  the  Son,  after  he  was  born  of  the  Father,  established  his  seat  or 
residence  in  the  sun ;  yet  in  such  a  way,  as  to  impart  also  a  portion  of  his  influ- 
ence to  the  moon,  and  in  some  measure  to  reside  in  it.  This  is  a  well  known 
dogma  of  the  Manichscan  school,  and  is  attested  by  many  writers.  But  no  one 
has  stated  it  more  clearly  than  Faustus ;  {apud  August,  contra  Faust.  L.  xx.  c. 
2.  p.  237.)  Faustus  being  asked :  Cur  solera  colitis,  nisi  quia  estis  paganni  ? 
does  not  disown  this  worship  of  the  sun  and  moon  ;  but  he  denies,  that  these 
luminaries  are  Deities.  He  says:  Nos  Patrem  quidem  ipsum  lucem  ineolere 
credimus  summam  ac  principalem,  quam  Paulus  alias  inaccessibilem  vocat :  Fi- 
lium  vero  in  hac  secunda  ac  visibili  luce  (ss.  the  sun)  consistere,  qui  quoniam  sit 
et  ipse  geminus,  ut  eum  Apostolus  tiovit,  Christum  dicens  esse  Dei  virtutem  et 
sapientiam  :  virtutem  quidem  ejus  in  sole  habitare  credimus,  sapientiam  vero  in 
luna.  From  this  passage,  it  is  clear  :  First;  That  Manes  supposed  the  Son  of 
God  not  to  be  the  sun  itself,  but  to  dwell  in  the  sun  as  in  a  palace.  The  anci- 
ents indeed,  and  not  a  few  of  the  moderns,  think  the  Manichajans  regarded  the 
sun  itself  as  Christ.  But  they  are  abundantly  confuted  by  this  passage  of  Faus- 
tus: who,  besides  other  things,  declares,  that  Christ  die  ells  in  the  second  and 
visible  light.  We  have  before  seen,  that  the  Son  consists,  not  of  the  visible  light 
which  fiiUs  on  our  eyes,  but  of  that  light  which  constitutes  the  Father,  which 
can  neither  be  seen  nor  felt,  and  can  be  apprehended  only  by  the  mind.  There- 
fore, that  second  and  risible  light,  in  which  he  dwells,  must  necessarily  be  distinct 
[p.  780.]  from  him.  Besides,  as  Augustine  has  expressly  stated,  (Liber  de  Hee- 
res.  c.  46.  p.  11.)  the  Manichceans  denied,  that  the  sun  consists  in  what  is  pro- 
perly denominated  light;  tliey  supposed  it  to  be  made  up  o^  good  fire,  which  is 
one  of  the  elements  of  the  world  of  light :  Duo  coeli  luminaria  ita  di.stinguunt, 
ut  lunam  dicant  lactam  ex  bona  aqua,  solem  vero  ex  igne  bono.    The  good  fire 


Manicliccan    Trinity.  297 

of  the  Manichaeans  was  of  a  different  nature  from  the  light.  The  rude  and  illi- 
terate among  the  ]\Ianiehaeans,  or  the  flock  of  Avdilors  as  they  were  called, 
doubtless  confounded,  as  is  usual,  the  sun  with  the  Son  of  God  who  resided  in 
it ;  and  they  supposed  they  worshipped  Christ  whenever  they  turned  their  laces 
to  the  sun.  And  hence  arose  the  opinion  of  many  among  the  ancients,  that  the 
Manichaeans  considered  the  sun  to  be  the  Son  of  God. — The  reason  why  Ma- 
nes located  the  Son  of  God  or  Christ  in  the  sun,  it  is  not  diflicult  to  discover.  It 
was  necessary,  as  he  supposed,  that  the  inhabitants  of  this  globe  should  have 
before  their  eyes  an  image  of  God,  whom  no  mortal  eye  can  see,  or  of  that  Son 
of  God,  whom  God  had  produced  from  himself  for  the  purpose  of  saving  souls  ; 
in  order  that  they  might  think  the  more  constantly  and  intensely  on  the  salvation 
to  be  obtained  through  him.  But  the  Son  of  God  could  not  be  seen  by  the  eyes  of 
mortals,  unless  he  were  surrounded  by  a  body,  or  by  some  appearance  of  a  body. 
And  besides,  the  pure  light  of  which  he  was  composed,  would,  as  before  noticed, 
be  tarnished  and  obscured  by  material  bodies,  if  it  should  present  itself  to  them 
naked.  As  therefore  Christ  needed  a  body,  in  which  he  could  be  seen,  and  in 
which  he  could  operate  freely  and  strongly,  he  chose  a  body  of  a  nature  the 
nearest  resembling  light,  in  which  to  dwell.  For  good  fire,  which  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  ours,  could  do  no  injury  to  the  perfectly  simple  nature  of  the  divine 
light.  Manes  says,  (apud  Fabricium,  1.  c.  p.  285.)  :  T6  cTg  dvcoTarov  ?ws  iS'ti^iv 
tAvrcv  tv  TcTf  vKu-Kol:  <ru)fji.Ao-i  o-wfAA.  Suprema  lux  (i.  e.  Christ,  of  whom  he  is 
speaking)  ipsa  sibi  inter  corpora  ex  materia  constantia  corpus  demonstravit  seu 
delegit :  namely,  such  a  body,  as  agreed  the  most  perfectly  with  his  nature. — 
Secondly ;  It  appears  from  the  passage  in  Faustus,  that  some  of  the  energy  of 
Christ  resides  in  the  moon,  while  his  virtus,  that  is,  (as  I  suppose,)  his  essential 
nature  dwells  in  the  sun.  As  we  learn  from  the  language  of  Augustine,  recent- 
ly quoted,  the  Manichaeans  believed  the  moon  to  consist  ex  aqua  bona  (of  good 
water)  ;  and  therefore  regarded  it  as  a  kind  of  sea.  Manes  himself,  in  the  seventh 
Book  of  his  Thesaurus,  (from  which  Augustine  gives  a  long  extract,  in  his 
Tract  de  natura  boni,  e.  44.  p.  366.)  calls  the  moon  A'aiem  vitalium  aquarum. 
Whence  it  appears,  that  they  supposed  the  moon  to  have  no  light  of  its  own,  or 
to  be  an  opaque  body.  But  the  splendor  of  the  moon  arises  from  the  souls 
purified  in  it.  For  souls  undergo  a  lustration  in  the  moon,  as  we  shall  see  in 
the  proper  place.  Yet  see  Simplicius  on  Epictetus,  p.  167.  But,  I  must  confess, 
I  do  not  intirely  understand  what  the  Manichaeans  mean,  when  they  say,  the 
wisdom  of  the  Son  of  God  aj)pears  especially  in  the  moon,  but  his  virtus  (virtue, 
or  essence)  in  the  sun.  All  the  ancients,  as  is  well  known,  supposed  the  sun  to  be 
fed,  sustained  or  nourished,  by  Avater.  Perhaps  the  Manichaeans  were  [p.  781.] 
of  the  same  opinion  ;  and  therefore  they  annexed  the  good  water  of  the  moon 
to  the  good  fire  of  the  sun,  in  order  to  afford  it  aliment.  Manes  discourses  very 
largely  respecting  the  sun,  moon  and  stars,  in  his  writings.  Says  Augustine, 
(Cont'essiones  L.  v.  c.  7.  p.  81.):  Libri  (sacri)  eorum  pleni  sunt  longissimis  fa- 
bulis,  de  coelo  et  sideribus  et  sole  et  luna.  Yet  this  part  of  the  system  of  ^f(nJrs 
must  necessarily  have  been  very  obscure.  For  those  of  his  disciples  who  lived 
in  the  fourth  century,  being  called  upon  to  give  account  of  their  master's  pre- 
cepts, either  oftered  the  merest  nonsense,  or,  if  more  ingenuous,  acknowledged 


298  Century  III— Section  43. 

that  they  did  not  understand  them.  Augustine  requested  Fausliis,  the  most 
learned  Mnnichaean  of  that  age,  to  exphiin  to  him  these  mysteries  :  but  Fauslus 
frankly  acknowledged  his  ignorance,  and  declined  the  task  :  Qufc  tamen  (i.  e. 
the  opinions  of  Manes  respecting  the  sun,  moon  and  stars)  ubi  corsiileranda  et 
discuc-.tienda  protuli,  raodeste  sane  ille  (Fauslus)  nee  ausus  est  subire  ipsam  (read, 
islam)  sarcinam.  Noverat  enim  se  ista  non  nosse,  nee  eum  puduit  eonfiteri.  Non 
erat  de  talibus,  quales  multos  loquaces  passus  cram,  conarUes  ea  me  docere,  et 
dicenles  (perhaps,  docentes)  nihil.  -  -  Noluit  se  temere  disputando  in  ea  coartari, 
unde  nee  exitus  ei  csset  ullns,  nee  facilis  reditus.  Of  these  fables  respecting 
the  sun,  which  Faustus  could  not  explain,  one  was  that  which  Augustine  men- 
tions, (contra  Faust.  L.  xx.  c.  6.  p.  238.)  viz.  The  Manichaeans  denied,  that  the 
sun  was  round ;  and  maintained,  on  the  contrary,  that  it  presented  a  triangular 
form,  or  shone  upon  us  through  a  sort  of  triangular  window  :  Quum  omnium 
occulis  rotundus  sol  effulgeat,  eaque,illi  figura  pro  sui  ordinis  positione  perfecta 
bit:  vos  eum  triangulum  perhibetis,  id  est,  per  quamdam  triangulam  coelifenes- 
tram  lucem  istam  mundo  terrisque  radiare.  Ita  fit,  ut  ad  istum  quidem  solem 
dorsum,  cervicemque  curvetis ;  non  autem  ipsura  tam  clara  rotunditate  conspi- 
cuum,  sed  nescio  quam  navim  per  foramen  triangulum  micantem  atque  lucen- 
tem — adoretis.  If  Augustine  correctly  apprehended  the  views  of  the  Mani- 
chaeans,  they  supposed  that  we  do  not  see  the  whole  of  the  sun,  because  God 
has  interposed  between  it  and  us  a  sort  of  triangular  body,  through  which  some 
portion  of  its  splendor  reaches  the  inhabitants  of  our  world.  But  I  doubt  whe- 
ther Augustine  correctly  understood  the  opinion  of  Manes. — The  speculations 
of  Manes  respecting  the  sun,  were  not  his  own  inventions,  but  were  derived 
from  the  opinions  of  the  Persians  respecting  Mitlira.  The  Persians  called  Mithra 
TpiTTKac-iov  (triple)  :  on  which,  I  recollect  to  have  made  remarks  formerly,  (Notes 
on  C'udicorOCs  Intellectual  System,  torn.  I.  p.  333,  &:c.)  They  also  called  the 
moon  triformis  (of  three  forms)  :  as  is  stated  by  Julius  Firmicus,  (de  errore 
profanar.  religionum  p.  413.)  Perhaps  Manes,  being  a  Persian,  said  the  same 
[p.  782.]  thing ;  but  Augustine  being  unacquainted  with  Persian  opinions,  mis- 
apprehended, and  supposed  the  form  of  a  triangle  to  be  mentioned. 

As  the  Manichaeans  supposed  the  Son  of  God  to  reside  in  the  sun  and 
moon,  it  is  not  strange  that  they  should  pay  some  honor  to  those  luminaries; 
and  it  is  abundantly  testified,  that  they  turned  their  eyes  to  them,  when  they 
prayed,  Augustine  says,  (de  Ilaeres.  c.  46.  p.  13.)  :  Orationes  faciunt  ad  solem 
per  diem,  quaqua  versum  circuit:  ad  lunan  per  noctem,  si  apparet:  si  autem  non 
apparet,  ad  Aquiloniam  partem,  qua  sol  cum  occiderit  ad  Orientem  revertitur, 
stjint  orantes.  And  in  various  passages,  Augustine  charges  the  Manichaeans 
with  the  worship  of  the  sun  and  moon,  as  being  a  hateful  crime.  And  so  does 
the  Platonic  Philosopher  Simplicius,  (Comment,  in  Enchirid.  Episteti,  p.  167.): 

Tod  in    iravTOiv   rdv   iv  Tu    ovfiuvce   fxovovi   rov;   S'uo   pa)5-T«p:tc    Tt/uav   -   -  roiv  cTg   a\\(ov 

KOLTcifipivuvy  u>s  T«c  Tou  KstKov  fxoipai  ovTiDV.  Sola  totlus  ccsU  duo  lumlua  hono- 
rant  -  -  cetera  vero  ut  quae  ad  malum  pertineant,  contemnunt.  I  know  not 
whether  it  was  true,  as  Simplicius  here  asserts,  that  the  Manichaeans  thought 
the  other  stars  to  be  connected  with  evil ;  indeed  I  can  hardly  believe  it  waa 
true.     But  that  they  paid  no  honors  to  any  celestial  body,  except  the  sun  and 


Manichccan    Tr'uiity.  299 

moon,  is  beyond  debate,  mid  may  be  demonstrated  by  the  testimonies  of  Au- 
gustine and  Faustus.  Nor  will  tiie  reason  of  this  distinction  be  deemed  uncer- 
tain, if  we  consider,  that  they  located  the  Son  of  God  nowhere,  except  in  the 
sun  and  moon.  Moreover,  the  Manicha3ans  do  not  disclaim  all  worship  of  the 
sun  and  moon;  but  only  apologize  for  it.  Faustus,  cited  by  Auguslinc,  (contra 
Faust.  L.  XX.  c.  1.  p.  '237.)  declares  himself  not  ashamed  of  the  worship  of  the  di- 
vim  luminaries:  but  he  adds,  tiiat  he  holds  to  one  God,  and  abhors  all  super- 
stition: Ego  a  paganis  multum  diversus  incedo  :  qui  ipsum  me — rationabile  Dei 
templum  puto :  vivum  vivae  majestatis  simulacrum  Filium  ejus  accipio  -  -  hono- 
res  divinos  ac  sacraficia  in  soils  orationibus  ac  ipsis  puris  et  simplicibus  pono. 
As  there  is  no  doubt  on  this  subject,  the  only  inquiry  is,  whether  the  Mani- 
chaeans  addressed  their  prayers  to  the  sun  and  moon  themselves,  or  to  God  and 
his  Son,  as  residing  in  the  sun  and  moon.  The  ancient  Christian  doctors  nearly 
all  tell  us,  that  this  sect  accounted  the  sun  and  moon  among  the  Gods;  and 
Augustine  himself,  when  he  becomes  much  heated  with  discussion,  charges  this 
crime  upon  them ;  although  on  other  occasions,  he  explains  their  views  more 
favorably.  But  this  accusation  may  be  refuted  by  strong  arguments.  First,  as 
we  learn  from  Augustine,  the  Manichoeans  supposed  the  sun  to  consist  of  good 
fire,  and  the  moon  of  good  ivater.  But  the  Manichaaans  did  not  worship  the  ce- 
lestial elements  in  place  of  God;  it  docs  not  appear  credible,  therefore,  that  they 
should  have  worshipped  the  sun  and  moon  as  Gods.  Secondly,  Alexander  of 
Lycopolis,  an  adversary  of  the  Maniciiseans,  (in  his  Tract  against  them,  p.  5.  in 
Com6e/is' Auctarium  Biblioth.  Patrum,)  expressly  says:  Solem  et  lunam,  non 
tanquam  Deos  revereri,  verum  tanquam  viam,  quee  ducit  ad  Deum:  oup^  wj  esou?, 
dXX'  u>f  0  (T  0  V,  (/"/'  «v  eTTt  TTftoi  Tov  Qiov  dp  lit.  iff  iy  a.  t.  This  langunge  does  [p.  783.1 
not  explain  the.  form  of  the  worship  which  the  Manichajans  paid  to  the  sun  and 
moon  ;  for  the  phrase,  Naturani  quandam  ut  viam  ad  Deum  colere,  may  be  un- 
derstood variously.  Still,  the  passage  acquits  them  of  the  crime  commonly  laid 
to  their  charge.  Moreover,  Augustine,  a  very  competent  witness,  who  had  fre- 
quently been  present  at  their  worship,  frankly  owns,  that  he  found  nothing  there 
contrary  to  the  Christian  religion  :  (Disput.  cum  Fortunato,  p.  69.)  :  Ego  in 
oratione,  in  qua  interfui,  nihil  turpe  fieri  vidi:  sed  solum  contra  fidem  animad- 
verti,  quam  postea  didici  et  probavi,  quod  contra  solem  facitis  orationem,  Prae- 
ter  hoc  in  ilia  oratione  vestra  nihil  novi  comperi.  The  Manicha3ans,  tlierefore, 
although  they  prayed  publicly  with  their  faces  towards  the  sun,  did  not  offer 
prayers  to  the  sun,  but  to  God  himself.  Yet  this  testimony  of  Augustine  does 
not  fully  settle  the  question;  for  he  adds,  that  he  would  have  what  he  says  to 
be  understood  of  their  common  prayers,  at  which  all  Manichaeans  might  be  pre- 
sent; and  that  perhaps  the  prayers  of  the  initiated,  or  those  whom  they  called 
the  Elect,  were  different :  Utrum  separatim  vobiscum  habeatis  aliquam  oratio- 
nem, Deus  solus  potest  nosse,  et  vos.  -  -  Quisquis  autem  vobis  opponit  quajs- 
tionem  aliquam  de  moribus,  Electis  vestris  opponit.  Quid  autem  inter  vos  agatis, 
qui  Ek'cti  estis,  ego  scire  non  possum.  To  this  suspicion,  Fortunatus  makes  no 
reply.  It  appears,  therefore,  first,  that  the  Manichasans  did  not  pl.ice  the  sun 
and  moon  among  Gods,  for  they  worshipped  only  one  God;  and,  secondly,  that 
they  addressed  their  prayers  to  God  only,  although  they  turned  their  faces  to 


300  Century  Ill.—Section  43. 

the  sun. — Tt  remains  to  enquire,  whether  the  Elect  among-  tlie  Manichaeans,  who 
understood  all  the  mysteries  of  the  sect,  made  supplieations  in  private  to  the 
sun  and  moon,  not  as  being  Gods,  but  as  beneficient  Beings.  Fauslus,  a  talented 
man,  and  one  of  the  Elect,  seems  to  settle  this  question ;  (in  Augustine,  L.  xx. 
c.  1.  p.  237.)  Yet  he  does  not  settle  it;  for  he  equivocates,  and  avoids  giving  a 
clear  and  explicit  answer.  Thus  much,  indeed,  we  may  learn  from  him,  that 
Augustine  had  reason  for  the  suspicion,  that  the  Elect  prayed  differently  from 
the  common  people,  and  paid  a  sort  of  worship  to  the  sun  and  moon;  but  the 
nature  of  that  worship,  Faustus  leaves  dubious.  One  of  his  adversaries  asked 
him  :  Cur  solcm  colitis,  nisi  quia  estis  pagani  et  gentium  Schisma,  non  secta? 
(i.  e.  not  the  Christian  sect.)  He  answers  very  captiously.  First,  he  concedes, 
that  the  Manichaeans  do  worship  the  sun  and  moon:  Absit,  ut  divinorum  lumi- 
num  erubescara  culturam.  Augustine  had  witnessed,  that  the  assembled  people 
admitted  nothing  into  their  prayers  that  contravened  the  Christian  religion, 
although  they  turned  their  faces  to  the  sun.  This  confession  of  Faustus  must 
therefore  refer  only  to  the  Elect.  Faustus  then  adds,  that  this  worship  of  the 
luminai'ies  has  nothing  in  coinman  with  faganism  (nihil  habere  cum  gentibus 
cojnmune).  He  therefore  declared — what  we  also  admit — that  his  sect  did  not 
[p.  784.]  worship  the  sun  and  moon,  as  Gods.  He  proceeds  to  state,  that  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Spirit,  were  invoked  and  adored  by  his  people. 
Thus  far  well!  But  after  speaking  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  returns  to  that  wor- 
ship, with  which  the  Manichaeans  were  reproached;  and  he  explains  it,  in  a 
manner  that  shows  plainly,  the  man  would  not  disclose  the  nature  of  it:  Qua- 
propter  et  nobis  circa  universa,  et  vobis  similiter  erga  panem  et  calicem  par  re- 
ligio  est,  quamvis  eorum  acerrime  oderitis  auctores.  That  is:  We  worship  and 
adore  the  universe,  in  the  same  manner  in  which  you  worship  and  adore  the 
bread  and  the  wine  in  the  Lord's  supper.  This  comparison  seems  to  mean  some- 
thing; and  yet  it  means  nothing.  And  it  was  brought  forward  solely  to  darken 
the  subject,  and  to  elude  the  question.  We  learn  from  it,  indeed,  that  the  Chris- 
tiana of  that  age  paid  some  external  honor  to  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  sacred 
supper;  but,  what  Faustus  understood  by  this  honor,  does  not  appear.  And 
therefore  we  cannot  learn  from  this  comparison,  in  what  sense,  or  for  what  ends, 
the  j\Ianichaeans  worshipped  the  sun  and  moon.  And  Augustine,  in  his  reply 
to  the  passage,  simns  the  light  as  much  as  Faustus.  He  mentions,  indeed,  that 
the  comparison  is  not  to  the  point;  but  he  does  not  tell  us,  what  difference 
there  was  between  the  worship  of  the  bread  and  wine  by  Christians,  and  the 
worship  of  the  sun  and  moon  by  the  Manichaeans.  He  first  says,  (c.  13.  p.  243.) ; 
Noster  panis  et  calix  non  quilibet,  sed  certa  consecratione  mysticus  fit  nobis, 
non  nascitur.  But  this  is  nothing.  For  Faustus  knew  very  well  that  the 
Christians  consecrated  the  bread  and  the  cup,  and  on  that  account,  esteemed 
them  mystical.  Augustine  proceeds:  Quamvis  sit  panis  et  calix,  alimentum  est 
refectionis,  non  sacramentum  religioni.s,  ni^i  quod  benedicimus,  gratiasque  agi- 
mus  Domino  in  omni  ejus  munere,  non  solum  spiritali,  sed  etiam  corporali. 
This  also  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  For  he  changes  the  subject,  and  passes 
from  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  sacred  Supper,  to  ordinary  or  common  bread 
and  wine,  concerning  which  there  was  no  dispute :  he  denies  that  a  cup  and 


Manichocan   Trinity.  301 

wine  are  a  religious  sacrament;  and  maintains,  on  tbe  contray,  that  tlicv  are 
a  refreshing  aliment.  This  is  true  of  common  bread  and  wine;  but  not  nlso  ot 
the  bread  and  wine  of  the  holy  supper ;  for  tiiese  are,  not  merely  refreshin<r  alirnent, 
but  a  religious  sacrament;  as  he  had  just  before  admitted,  by  saying  they  became 
mystical  by  consecration.  And  yet,  after  some  cavils,  as  if  he  had  triumphed, 
he  closes  the  discussion  thus  :  Quomodo  ergo  comparas  panem  et  calicem  nos- 
trum et  parem  religionem  dicis  errorem  a  veritate  longe  discretum,  pejus  desi- 
piens,  quam  nonnulli,  qui  nos  propter  panem  et  calicem  Cererem  et  Liberuni 
eolere  existimant.  He  therefore  concedes,  that  the  Christians  worshipped  the 
bread  and  wine  ;  and  he  informs  us,  that  on  account  of  this  worship,  some  per- 
sons believed,  that  the  Christians  adored  Ceres  and  Bacchus.  But  he  would 
not  tell  plainly,  what  was  meant  by  this  Christian  adoration  of  the  bread  and 
wine,  and  how  it  differed  from  the  Manicha^an  worship  of  the  sun  and  moon. 
The  crafty  Faustus,  perceiving  the  ulcer  of  his  sect  to  be  touched,  led  [p.  785.] 
his  adversary  into  a  snare  by  that  comparison,  and  so  escaped ;  and  Auguatine 
in  like  manner,  looked  around  for  a  way  of  escape  merely,  and  would  not  say, 
whether  he  approved  or  disapproved  the  Christian  practice  of  adoring  the  bread 
and  wine,  nor  disclose  the  true  nature  of  it.  At  length,  Faustiis  attempts  to 
vindicate  the  practice  of  his  sect  in  worshipping  the  sun  and  moon,  by  the  ex- 
ample of  all  nations.  He  says:  Tu  vel  quilibet  alius  rogatus,  ubinam  Deum 
suum  credat  habitare,  respondere  non  dubitabit;  In  lumine  :  ex  quo  cultus  hit 
mens  (ss.  solis)  omnium  testimonio  confirmatur.  But  this  is  not  clear.  We 
are  told,  indeed,  that  the  Manicha^ans  venerate  the  sun  or  ligTit,  because  it  is 
the  residence  of  God :  but  we  wish  to  know  the  nature  of  this  veneration  or 
worship ;  and  this  the  man  dares  not  attempt  to  explain ;  but  defers  the  subject 
to  another  time :  De  fide  nostra  si  quaerendum  alias  putaveris,  audies.  This 
was  doubtless  wise  for  him  ;  but  is  unsatisfactory  to  us. — But  however  it  was, 
the  passage  from  Faustus,  in  which  he  compares  the  worship  of  the  sun  with 
the  worship  of  bread  and  wine  in  the  sacred  supper,  contains  a  suggestion, 
which,  if  it  do  not  lead  us  to  a  full  understanding  of  the  subject,  may  enable  U3 
to  approximate  towards  it.  He  says :  Quapropter  et  nobis  circa  universa  religio 
est :  or,  we  religiously  worship  the  universe.  These  words  follow  immediately 
after  the  above  passage,  and  the  word  quapropter  shows,  that  the  ground  for 
the  worship  in  question,  was  implied  in  that  passage.  Now  he  had  before  said : 
Spiritum  sanctum  terram  gravidare,  earaque  (foecundatam)  gigncre  Jcsum  pas- 
sibilem,  omni  suspensum  ex  ligno.  He  therefore  gives  this  reason  for  the  wor- 
ship of  the  universe ;  viz.  because  the  earth,  on  being  impregnated  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  brings  forth  the  passive  Jesus.  This  passive  Jesus  of  the  Manichreans, 
of  which  we  shall  speak  elsewhere,  is  the  products  and  fruits  of  the  earth  ;  in 
which,  the  Manichaeans  supposed,  there  were  not  only  particles  of  celestial  and 
divine  matter,  but  also  sensation  and  a  soul.  Consequently,  they  worshipped 
the  universe,  because  all  things  are  endued  with  a  kind  of  divine  sensation  and  a 
celestial  soul.  The  universe  (universa)  denoted  undoubtedly  the  five  celestial 
elements  of  the  Manichajans.  Of  course,  they  supposed  these  elements  to  be 
animated,  (as  appears  also  from  other  testimonies,)  and  full  of  a  divine  spirit ; 
and  therefore  they  paid  them  some  worship.     Consequently,  the  sun  and  the 


302  Century  JIL— Section  43. 

moon,  being  composed  of  good  fire  and  good  water,  were  intitled  to  worship. 
And,  as  they  supposed  good  fire  and  good  water  to  be  animated,  they  doubtless 
believed  the  sun  and  moon  to  be  endued  with  intelligence  and  sensation.  This 
was  an  ancient  and  very  common  opinion,  not  only  of  the  Oriental  people,  but 
also  of  many  of  the  philosophers. — Putting  all  these  things  together,  I  think  it 
probable,  that  the  Elect  among  the  Miinichseans  did  invoke  the  sun  and  ihe 
moon  ;  not  indeed  as  Gods,  but  as  excellent  and  benificent  Beings,  by  whose 
influence  they  might  become  more  happy,  and  better  prepared  for  liberating  their 
immortal  souls  from  the  bonds  of  the  body. 

[p.  786.]  (3)  Of  the  Holy  Spirit,  no  one  has  spoken  more  fully  than  Fans- 
tus ;  (apud  Avgustinum  L.  xx.  c.  2.  p.  237.) :  Spiritus  saneti,  qui  est  majestas 
tertia  (the  third  Person  of  the  divine  nature,)  aeris  hunc  omnem  ambitum  sedem 
fatemur  ac  diversorium,  cujus  ex  viribus  et  spiritali  profusione,  terram  quoque 
concipientem,  gignere  patibilem  Jesum,  qui  est  vita  ac  salus  hominum,  omni 
suspensus  ex  ligno.  The  Holy  Spirit,  then,  according  to  the  views  of  the  Ma- 
niclucans,  is  a  Being,  produced  from  God  the  Father,  when  the  world  was 
formed.  Hence  it  follows,  that  he  is  a  lucid  parcel  or  mass.  His  residence  is 
the  air ;  but  not  that  gross  air  contiguous  to  us,  for  in  that  the  Demon  and  his 
princes  are  confined  as  captives.  Neither  is  this  impure  air,  which  is  contami- 
nated with  the  smoke  that  constitutes  the  fifth  element  of  the  world  of  darkness, 
a  fit  residence  for  a  Being  originating  from  the  Father  of  lights.  Air,  in  the 
Manic heean  phraseology,  is  ether,  ex  altissimis  ignihus  constans,  as  Cicero  says, 
surrounding  and  enclosing  this  our  globe.  Therefore,  as  the  Manichccans  lo- 
cated the  Son  of  God  in  the  good  fire  and  good  loater,  those  elements  of  the 
world  of  light,  so  they  located  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  ether,  which  is  also  one  of 
the  celestial  elements. — His  offi^ces  are  not  all  mentioned  by  Faustiis,  but  only 
that  one  from  which  he  could  explain  the  ground  for  the  worship  of  the  sun 
and  moon,  then  under  discussion.  Seated  in  the  highest  ether  or  heat  encom- 
passing our  globe,  the  Holy  Spirit,  first  warms,  moves  and  instructs  the  minds 
of  men,  and  raises  them  to  the  Father  of  lights ;  for,  as  the  Manichaean  school 
proclaimed,  he  imparted  an  extraordinary  portion  of  his  influence  to  Manes,  a 
far  greater  than  to  the  Apostles  and  other  men.  Manes  himself  says,  in  his 
Epistola  Fundamenti :  Intima  pectoris  humani  adaperit,  ut  videant  homines  ani- 
mas  suas. — Secondly,  He  fecundates  this  our  earth,  and  causes  it  to  produce  the 
passive  Jesus  (Jesus  patibilis),  that  is,  all  kinds  of  fruits  which  men  eat  to  sus- 
tain life.  Of  this  passive  Jesus,  we  shall  treat,  when  we  come  to  speak  of  the 
Manichsean  doctrine  respecting  our  earth  :  at  present,  I  merely  state,  that  the 
Manichrcans  supposed,  there  was  in  our  earth  a  soul  or  vital  force,  which  they 
called  Jesus.  That  force,  the  Holy  Spirit  by  his  influence  separates  from  the 
grosser  matter,  and  conducts  into  plants  and  shrubs  and  trees,  to  make  them 
bear  fruit.  And  those  fruits,  because  they  contain  a  vital  force  or  soul,  are 
called  Jes2is ;  and,  because  they  are  masticated  and  crushed  by  the  teeth  of 
men,  the  passive  Jesus.  Faustus  says  of  the  passive  Jesus :  vita  et  salus  est 
hominum ;  that  is,  it  sustains  human  life,  promotes  health,  and  sometimes  re- 
stores lost  health.  These  are  silly  anile  fables:  but  nothing  better  could  be 
expected  from  a  delirious  old  man,  a  rustic  imbued  with  the  Persian  philoso- 


Manichccan    Trinity.  303 

phy. — As  to  their  pnying  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  I  find  nolhinf^  recorded.  Hut  as 
they  professed  to  worship  one  God  in  three  Persons,  and  considered  [p.  787.) 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  part  of  the  divine  nature,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  they 
invoked  hitn  in  connexion  with  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Besides,  Manes,  '\\\ 
the  bci^inning  of  his  Epislola  Finulamenli,  i)rays  for  the  light  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  be  shed  on  his  people  ;  and  iSccundinus,  (in  his  Epistle  to  Avgusline,  Opp, 
toni.  viii.  p.  369,  &-c.)  declares  t'^^it  he,  kiSpirilui  sancto  gratias  habet  el  svpplex 
refert. 

(4)  Manes,  being  a  Persian,  estimated  the  Christian  religion  by  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Magi :  and  what  he  teaches  respecting  the  Son  of  Cod  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  agrees  entirely  with  the  speculations  of  the  ancient  Persians  re- 
specting Mithras  and  the  ether.  Concerning  that  great  Persian  God  Mithras, 
we  have  full  commentaries  by  several  learned  men ;  viz.  Phil,  a  Turrc,  (in  his 
Monumenta  veteris  Antii,)  Thomas  Hyde,  (Historia  relig.  vet.  Persarum,)  Jac. 
Martini,  (de  veterum  Gallorum  religione,)  and  others.  What  the  Persians 
taught  respecting  Mithras,  the  very  same  taught  Manes  res^pecting  Christ,  or 
the  Son  of  God.  The  vulgar  among  the  Persians  did  not  distinguish  Mithras 
from  the  sun :  but  the  wiser  men  did  so,  and  held  Mithras  to  be  inferior  to  tho 
supreme  God,  yet  a  great  Deity,  and  resident  in  the  sun.  This  I  will  not  now  stop 
to  prove,  lest  I  should  turn  aside  too  far ;  but  it  may  be  easily  demonstrated 
from  Plutarch. — Mithras,  as  Plutarch  observes,  (de  Iside  et  Osiride,  p.  369.) 
was  a  middle  God,  between  the  good  Principle  and  the  bad;  and  was 
therefore  called  by  the  Persians  ^?!rt'r«c  or  Mediator.  But  beware  of  suppos- 
ing, that  Mithras  possessed  a  middle  nature,  compounded  some  how  of  both 
light  and  darkness.  This  title  of  Mediator  undoubtedly  refered  to  his  ofHce, 
and  denoted,  that  he  withstood  the  efforts  of  Arimanius,  the  Prince  of  dark- 
ness, to  enlarge  his  empire;  and  that  he  aided  the  souls  abstracted  from  the 
light,  in  their  return  to  God.  Now  the  same  title  of  Mediator  being  applied 
in  the  Scriptures  to  the  Saviour  of  mankind,  this  alone  might  induce  Ma7ies 
to  compare  our  Saviour  with  the  Persian  Mithras.  The  Persians  also  be- 
lieved, of  their  Mithras  as  Manes  did  of  Christ,  that  he  was  present  not  only 
in  the  sun,  but  likewise  in  the  moon.  And  hence,  in  all  the  monuments  of  the 
worship  of  Mithras  which  have  reached  us,  the  moon  always  accompanies  the 
sun.  See  Phil,  a  Turre,  (Monum.  veteris  Antii,  p.  157.)  Anton,  van  Dale,  (Dis- 
sertt.  ad  Antiquitates  et  Marmora  p.  16.)  and  Jac.  Martin,  (Religion  des  Gau- 
lois,  L.  ii.  p.  421.)  and  others.  They  supposed  Mithras  possessed  a  twofold 
energy,  the  one  male,  the  other  female  ;  and  that  the  former  resided  in  the  sun, 
but  the  latter  in  the  moon.  Says  Julius  Firmicus,  (de  errore  profanar.  religio- 
num  p.  413,  at  the  end  of  Minucius  Felix,  edit.  Gronovii) :  PersEe  Jovem  in 
duas  dividunt  potestates,  naturam  ejus  ad  utriusque  sexus  referentes  et  viri  et 
foeminai  simulacra  ignis  substantiam  dcputantes.  This  doctrine  the  Mani- 
chaeans  expressed  in  a  Christian  manner,  and  in  Bible  language  (1  Cor.  i.  24.) 
by  saying.  The  power  {virtus,  ^Cvaui^)  of  Christ  dwells  in  the  sun,  but  his 
wisdom  in  the  moon.  They  dared  not  use  the  Persian  terms  and  phra.s-  [p.  788.] 
es,  lest  they  should  be  thought  to  worship  a  God  and  Goddess,  in  the  sun  and 
moon,  as  the  Persian  vulgar  did.     Firmicus,  whom  I  have  just  quoted,  says  a 


304  Century  III. — Section  44. 

little  after,  that  the  male  Jupiter  inhabiting  the  sun,  was  called  Milhras  by  the 
Persians:  nor  is  he  in  error.  In  my  notes  on  Ce/Jwo?-//;,  (Intellectual  System 
p.  327.)  I  have  shown  from  Herodotus,  that  the  word  Mithras  was  also  transferred 
to  the  moon,  and  while  the  dweller  in  the  sun  was  called  Milhras,  the  dweller 
in  the  moon  was  called  Mithra  ;  indicating-  that  one  and  the  same  Being,  though 
in  a  difterent  manner,  animated  both  the  sun  and  the  moon.  It  is  therefore 
manifest,  that  Milhras  and  the  Manichaean  Christ  actually  differed  in  nothing, 
except  in  name.  And  perhaps  also,  the  Persians  hoped  that  Milhras  would,  at 
sonic  future  time,  descend  from  the  sun,  assume  a  human  form,  and  instruct 
mortals  in  the  worship  of  the  true  God.  But  Manes  would  not  have  Christ 
worshipped  in  the  way  the  Persians  worshipped  Milhras  ;  for,  in  place  of  sacrifi- 
ces, he  substituted  nothing  but  prayers  and  some  external  signs  of  reverence. 
This  was  the  effect  of  Christianity. — Respecting  the  worship  of  the  ether  by  the 
Persians,  we  have  not  so  many  proofs  as  we  have  of  their  worship  of  the  sun 
and  moon,  and  of  Milhras  resident  in  those  planets.  Yet  we  have  one  striking 
passage  in  Herodotus,  (Historia,  L.  I.  §  131.  p.  55.  edit.  Gronov.)  which,  while 
it  affords  confirmation  to  some  other  things  that  we  have  stated,  shows,  that  the 
Persians  located  a  Deity  in  the  highest  elhei',  and  paid  divine  honors  to  it.  He 
first  tells  us,  that  the  Persians  did  not  attribute  a  human  form  to  their  Gods: 
neither  did  Manes;  as  we  have  seen.  He  then  says:  0<  S^i  vcfAi^ova-i  Aii  i^h,  irl 

ra  C^nKOTttra.  twv    opewv   dva^aivovri^t   ^va-'ia.z    tpJ'itv,     tov  kvkXov   iravra    tow  oupxvov 

Aia  KaXeovng.  Moris  habent,  editissismis  conscensis  montibus,  Jovi  (Herodotus 
uses  the  Greek  appellation,  to  which  the  Persians  were  strangers,)  facere  sacra, 
omnem  gyrum  coeli  (i.  e.  the  ether,  encompassing  our  earth,)  Jovera  (Deum) 
appellantes:  or,  supposing  some  God  to  reside  in  that  ether.  After  this,  he  tells 
us,  that  the  Persians  likewise  olTer  sacrifices  to  the  sun  and  the  moon :  and 
hence,  the  worship  of  the  ether  was  something  different  from  the  worship  of 
the  sun  and  moon.  And  he  finally  tells  us,  that  they  sacrificed  to  the  earth  (the 
ground,)  to  fire,  to  water,  to  the  u-ind.  Here  we  remark:  First;  The  ancient 
Persians  held  \o  fite  elements,  as  Manes  did :  for,  to  the  ether,  which  he  had  be- 
fore mentioned, /feroc?oms  adds  four  others. — Secondly:  They  worshipped  the 
elements :  whence  it  may  be  inferred  that  they  supposed  them  ammated  as  Ma. 
nes  believed. —  Thirdly  :  Wind  was  ranked  by  them  among  the  elements,  as  it 
was  by  Manes.  But,  by  the  wind,  they  undoubtedly  did  not  mean  the  lower  air 
or  atmosphere. 

§  XLIY.     War  of  the  Prince  of  Darkness  on  the  Prince  of  Light. 

After  a  vast  length  of  time,  tlie  race  of  darkness  having  become 
exceedingly  numerous,  an  intestine  war  raged  in  that  miserable 
[p.  789.]  world,  perhaps  respecting  boundaries  and  residences. 
In  this  war,  while  the  victors  pursued  the  vanquished,  and  the 
latter  fled  into  the  mountains  on  the  frontiers  of  the  province, 
suddenly,  from  these  mountains,  the  sons  of  darkness  descried  the 
realm  of  light  and  its  astonishing  splendor,  of  which  they  before 
had  no  knowledge.  On  descrying  the  light  they  ceased  fighting ; 


War  with   God.  305 

and,  taking  counsel  together,  they  determined  to  invade  that 
happy  world  they  so  much  admired,  and  to  bring  it  under  their 
dominion.  Without  delay  an  army  was  raised  and  marched 
forth. — As  the  countless  and  infuriated  host  came  near,  the  Lord 
of  the  world  of  light  opposed  to  it  a  Being  of  his  own  nature, 
whom  he  had  suddenly  procreated,  attended  by  the  five  celestial 
elements  and  a  vast  multitude  of  troops.  This  General  of  the 
world  of  light,  who  bore  the  name  of  First  Man^  conducted  the 
war  with  valor  and  discretion,  yet  not  very  successfully.  For 
the  leaders  of  darkness  not  only  plundered  a  considerable  por- 
tion of  the  celestial  elements,  which  they  mixed  up  with  their 
own  depraved  elements,  but  they  also  greedily  devoured  large 
quantities  of  the  divine  light,  which  was  animated:  nay,  they 
nearly  overpowered  First  Man  himself,  and  stripped  him  of  a 
part  of  his  excellence.  As  therefore  tlie  hard  pressed  command- 
er of  the  forces  of  light  implored  the  aid  of  God,  he  sent  forth 
another  General,  produced  in  like  manner  from  himself,  but  more 
powerful  than  the  former,  and  bearing  the  name  of  Living  Spirit 
Tliis  General  rescued  First  2fan,  and  conquered  the  Prince  of 
darkness  :  but  lie  could  not  restore  to  its  pristine  state  the  plun- 
der taken  from  the  world  of  light,  because  it  had  been  com- 
mingled with  vicious  matter.(^) 

(1)  The  fable  of  Manes  respecting  .1  war  between  the  good  and  bad  Princi- 
ples, if  estimated  by  our  ideas  of  God  and  divine  things,  is  impious  and  absurd ; 
but  if  considered  in  relation  to  the  objects  of  its  author,  and  judged  of  by  his 
fundamental  principles,  it  is  fur  less  senseless :  nay,  it  is  necessary,  and  sup- 
ported by  good  reasons.  For,  as  Manes  assumed  it  for  a  certainty,  that  good 
and  evil  arose  from  two  separate  causes,  he  could  not  show  whence  originated 
that  intermixture  of  good  and  evil  which  is  visible  in  our  world,  without  ima- 
gining such  a  W'ar ;  and  adorning  the  fiible  with  various  circumstances  suited  to 
his  purpose.  I  will  endeavor  to  make  the  statements  of  this  subject,  as  gather- 
ed from  ancient  writers,  more  intelligible  than  they  are  usually  made :  wliich 
will  not  only  afford  satisfaction  to  many  minds,  but  also  be  useful  for  [p.  790.] 
illustrating  the  history  of  the  church,  and  for  correcting  the  errors  of  many. — 
As  we  have  already  seen,  God  knew  that  the  world  of  darkness  existed ;  but  the 
people  of  darkness,  as  they  were  altogether  wretched  and  miserable,  so  also 
were  they  ignorant  and  stupid,  and  knew  nothing  of  God  and  of  the  world  of 
light.  Manes  was  obliged  to  suppose  this  ignorance  in  the  Prince  of  darkness 
and  his  subjects,  in  order  to  account  for  their  entering  on  the  war.  For  if  the 
King  of  darkness  had  known,  that  a  most  powerful  Deity  existed,  and  resided 
in  the  world  of  light,  he  would  not  have  resolved  to  invade  that  happy  land, 
VOL.  II.  21 


306  Cejitury  IIL—Section  44. 

in  order  to  subjugate  it.  Titus  of  Bostra  tells  us,  from  the  Liber  Mysterio- 
rum  of  Manes,  (contra  Maniehseos  L.  I.  torn.  I.  p.  71.  of  Canisius'  Collection,) 
4»i(rt  TO  yfafxfjLAf  d?'  cy  to.  ttu^u.  tow  Mavivroi  7rAfi%^Y>Ka(xiti  wf  owtT'  ort  Qidi  iv 
fajTi    (T/jjTdro    iyivaxTKOv,    ouJ"    oti    TcA/Loicravraj    Kara    tqZ     oizMmpicv    rev    Qiou    ouk 

iutKxoY  d^woi  TTOTt  dnaWayiivcti.  Sciiptum  est  in  libro  (mysteriorum)  Manetis 
undo  hccc  npposuinuis,  quod  neque  Deum  in  lumine  habitare  sciebant,  ne'quc  se 
unquam  impune  laturos,  si  in  Dei  domicilium  invadere  auderent.  Add  p.  74.  He 
well  exhibits  (p.  70.)  the  ground  of  this  fiction.  An  unforeseen  occurrence 
brought  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  of  darkness  to  a  knowledge  of  the  world 
of  light.  A  civil  war  having  arisen  in  the  world  of  darkness,  where  broils  were 
unceasing,  the  vanquished  party,  on  being  chased  by  the  conquerors  from  their 
homes,  tied  to  the  tiirthest  boundaries  of  their  country  ;  and  there  both  parties 
discovered  the  world  of  light.  Titus,  as  recently  quoted,  states  this  from  the 
books  of  Manes  himself  See  his  work,  (L.  J.  p.  74.  and  p.  71.)  where  he  says: 

^«<rij/  «  nap'  durots  /^I'/SXcfj  Trpds  dXX«Act/?  o-ra^id^ovTis  gTSToAstcroty,  nai  f^cXP^  '"'*'*' 
(Hi^-cpiuv,  Kal  TO  fcos  i/tTov,   ^idiAO.   tI  x.d\\itrrcv  nhi   tv^pirio-rarop.    Sic  igUur  est 

in  libro  quem  habent  (mysteriorum),  seditione  inter  ipsos  orta,  prodierunt  usque 
ad  confinium  et  viderent  lumen,  spectaculum  quoddam  pulcherrimum  et  maxima 
decorum.  After  7'itus,  (who  is  more  worthy  of  credit  than  all  others,)  the 
common  writers  on  the  Heresies,  namely,  Epiphanius,  I'lieadoret,  Damascenus^ 
&LQ.  relate  the  same  thing.  A  more  probable  occasion  of  the  discovery  of  the 
world  of  light  by  the  inhabitants  of  darkness.  Manes  could  scarcely  have  devis- 
ed. To  make  this  manifest,  let  it  be  considered,  that  the  world  of  darkness  was 
surrounded  by  lofty  mountains,  cliffs  and  eminences,  w^hich  prevented  the  rays 
of  light  from  falling  upon  it.  For  if  it  had  been  a  level  plane,  the  light  of  hea- 
ven, (which  was  over  against  the  region  of  darkness,)  being  exceedingly  bright, 
and  shining  to  an  immense  distance,  could  not  possibly  have  so  long  escaped 
the  sight  of  the  citizens  of  that  region.  In  the  farthest  mountains  and  cliffs 
bounding  the  realm  of  darkness,  therefore,  the  vanquished  are  supposed  to  have 
sought  for  safety.  And  the  discovery  of  the  light  put  an  end  to  the  battle.  For 
the  combattantg  stood  amazed  ;  and  forgetting  their  hatred  and  fury,  they  feast- 
ed their  eyes  and  their  minds  with  the  magnificent  spectacle.  On  recovering 
themselves,  they  consulted  together,  how  to  get  possession  of  that  treasure ; 
[p.  791.]  and  they  resolved  to  seize  upon  it.    Thus  Manes,  as  quoted  by  Tiius, 

(1.  C.  p.  71.)  :'0/  S'i   YiTaKTCuv,  fiio-l,  K.a\  iiSiKivv   dXXviXcy?,  TO  <pioi  <r«  /lT&vts?  hrctva-ciVTO. 

Illi  vero,  ait  Manes,  in  perturbato  erant,  seque  oppugnabant,  viso  vero  lumine 

desierunt.  And  a  little  after  :  Tot«  Ctto  r«s  h  dinoh  Kivyis-ioo^  iv^ov<nc,vvrii  Kara 
Tou  ^aiTOf  i^cvXivTULVTOi  t\  (Tjj  TTOiyKTavTit  J'vvaivTO  av  dvTOVi  Tffl  KptiTTOvi  (rvyv.ffd<rai 

Tunc  a  motu  illo,  quem  sentiebant,  in  furorem  acti  consultabant  de  lumine,  quid 
faciendum  esset,  ut  se  cum  eo,  quod  prsestantius  erat,  miscerent. — It  is  manifest 
therefore,  that  those  learned  men  entirely  mistake,  who  represent  Manes  as  be- 
lieving, that  the  Prince  of  darkness  deliberately  made  war  upon  God;  and  who 
compare  this  war  with  that  which,  as  the  Grecian  fables  state,  the  Giants  waged 
against  the  Gods.  The  race  of  darkness,  according  to  the  views  oi  Manes,  were  in- 
tirely  ignorant  of  God,  and  could  not  possibly  have  resolved  on  a  war  against  him. 
When  God  perceived  the  host  of  darkness  approaching  his  borders,  he  was 


War  u'lth   God.  307 

aware  that  his  subjects  were  in  great  peril  from  tiiis  furious  enemy  ;  and  there- 
fore he  determined,  that  a  valiant  General  with  a  numerous  army,  should  uo  out 
to  battle,  in  order  to  drive  those  smoky  Giants  beyond  the  limits  of  his  kino-. 
dom.  Thus  Manes  himself,  in  his  Epistola  Fimdamenti,  (npud  August,  de  na- 
tura  ^oni,  c.  42.  p.  364.)  :  Lucis  beatissimse  Pater  seiens,  labem  mnonam  et 
vastitatem,  qua;  ex  tcnebris  surgeret,  advcrsus  sua  sancta  impendcre  ISaicula 
nisi  aliquod  eximium  et  pra3clarum  et  virtute  potens  Numen  opponat.  These 
words  clearly  show  the  weakness  of  God,  or  that  his  power  was  confined  within 
narrow  limits ;  and  of  course  that  those  judge  too  favorably  of  the  Manichtc- 
ans,  who  make  their  God  omnipotent.  On  this  emergency,  the  Father  of  liaht 
first  produced  from  himself  a  certain  virtue  or  power,  called  Mother  of  Life ; 
and  she  bore  another  Being,  called  First  Man;  and  he  with  a  great  retinue, 
and  armed  with  the  five  celestial  elements,  marched  against  the  Prince  of  dark- 
ness. Ti/rbo,  (in  the  Acta  Disput.  Archelai  cum  Manele,  p.  22.  edit.  Zaccag- 
nii,)  says  in  the  language  of  Manes  :  Cum  cognovisset  bonus  Pater,  tenebras  ad 
terram  suam  supervenisse,  prodnxit  ex  se  virtutem,  qua3  dicitur  Alaicr  Ffte,qua 
virtute  circumdcdit  Primum  Hominem  (so  the  ancient  Latin  translator  renders 
it :  but  erroneously,  as  appears  from  the  Greek,  which  is  found  in  Epiphanhis, 
and  is :  Kai  duT«v  Trpo^ifixuKivai  top  Trfdrov  av^fceTTov.  Et  ilia  mater  vitcc  pro- 
duxit  Prinrum  Hominem)  eumque  circumdcdit  quinque  dementis,  quee  sunt 
ventus,  lux,  aqua,  ignis  et  materia  (so  it  is  in  the  Latin,  and  in  tiie  Greek  of 
Epiphanius.  But  it  is  evident,  as  Beausohre  has  said,  that  instead  of  vkd  and 
materia^  it  should  read  aer.  For  ^x»  is  a  bad  principle,  and  has  no  place  among 
the  elements  of  the  world  of  light.  The  fifth  element  of  the  Manichajans  was 
air  or  either,)  quibus  indutus  tanquam  ad  paratum  belli  descendit  deorsum,  ad 
pugnandum  versus  tenebras.  Augustine  says,  (contra  Faustum,  L.  ii.  c.  3.  p.  133.) 
Profertis  nobis  ex  armario  vestro  nescio  quem  Primum  Hominem.,  qui  ad  gentera 
tenebrarum  debcllandum  de  lucis  gente  descendit,  armatum  aquis  suis  [p.  792.] 
contra  inimicorum  aquas,  et  igne  suo  contra  inimicorun  ignem,  et  ventis  suis  con- 
tra inimicorum  ventos.  Cur  non  ergo  et  fiimo  suo  contra  inimicorum  fumum,  et 
tenebris  suis  contra  inimicorum  tenebras,  scd  contra  fumum  aere,  uti  dicitis,  arma- 

batur,  et  contra  tenebras  luce} Cur  contra  malum  fumum  non  potuit  afferre 

fumum  bonum  ?  These  questions  of  Augustine  are  futile  ;  and  they  show  that  he 
was  ignorant  of  the  nature  of  the  elements  of  Manes.  For  the  smoke  was  the  bad 
either,  the  opposite  of  the  good  air  ;  and  darkness  belonged  to  the  misty  world,  the 
opposite  of  which  was  light,  or  the  bright  and  splendid  world.  See  also  Augustine^ 
(L,  xi.  c.  3.  p.  157,  and  de  Ha3res,  c.  42.)  also  Titus  of  Bostra,  (L.  I.  p.  68.)  and  the 
other  writers  of  less  authority,  who  are  well  known.  In  these  difiicult  conceits, 
there  is  still  some  discretion  :  for  Manes  is  self-consistent,  and  dexterously  ad- 
justs all  the  parts  of  his  system  to  his  first  or  elementary  principles :  which 
shows  that  he  exercised  his  reason  in  his  wild  vagaries.  But  it  is  difficult  for 
us  at  this  day,  to  discover  the  grounds  of  all  his  doctrines,  because  no  small 
part  of  his  system  remains  in  the  dark.  The  names  he  assigns  to  the  })erson3 
he  introduces,  are  not  arbitrary,  (as  Titus  of  Bostra  supposed,  contra  Manicha^oa 
L.  L  p.  68.)  but  are  derived  from  the  nature  of  those  persons,  and  therefore  are 
appropriate  to  them.    The  Mother  of  Life,  that  Being  whom  God  procreated 


SOS  Century  III.— Section  44. 

from  himself,  when  he  saw  the  Prince  of  darkness  approaching  his  borders, 
was  undoubtedly  a  Deity,  which  had  the  power  of  transmitting  life  from  herself 
to  others,  or  of  producing  living  beings.  And  for  the  son  of  this  mother,  no 
more  fit  name  could  be  devised,  than  that  of  the  First  Man.  For  it  is  very  certain, 
that  he  possessed  the  human  form,  because  Adam  was  fashioned  by  the  Demon 
after  his  likeness ;  as  we  sliall  see  hereafter.  Anterior  to  him,  there  had  been  no 
Being  in  the  world  of  liglit, resembling  men:  and  therefore,  very  correctly  and 
properly,  he  could  be  called  the  First  Man.  namely,  among  celestials.  For  all 
the  JEons  or  Scccnla,  were  merely  lucid  masses,  like  God  their  Parent,  having  no 
definite  form.  Nor  was  it  suitable,  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  of  light 
should  be  like  men,  because  the  Prince  of  darkness  and  all  his  subordinate 
princes  resembled  men.  And  therefore  that  First  Man,  who  warred  against 
the  Prince  of  darkness,  was  not  received  into  the  world  of  light,  but  resided 
with  his  m.other  in  the  smaller  ship,  or  moon.  And  hence  also,  an  answer  may 
be  given  to  the  inquiry,  why  God  did  not  himself  produce  that  First  Man, 
which  he  doubtless  could  have  done,  but  produced  another  Being,  the  Mother  of 
Life  of  whom  lie  was  born.  For  it  was  unbecoming  the  majesty  and  wisdom 
of  God,  to  produce  out  of  himself  a  Being  resembling  the  Prince  of  darkness 
the  Lord  of  evil ;  and  therefore  this  function  was  transferred  to  an  inferor  Be- 
ing. The  purpose  of  God  required,  that  a  General  of  human  form  should 
march  against  the  Lord  of  darkness ;  for  it  was  the  pleasure  of  God,  that  the 
[p.  793.]  war  should  be  conducted  by  artifice  and  stratagem  rather  than  by 
force  of  arms,  or  that  the  fearful  enemy  should  be  entrapped  and  caught  by 
blandishments,  rather  than  vanquished  in  open  war.  Therefore,  as  the  King  of 
darkness  was  a  man,  or  a  giant  of  immense  bulk,  a  hero  of  his  form  was  to  be 
sent  against  him ;  from  whom  he  would  expect  no  harm,  supposing  him  to  be 
of  the  same  nature  with  himself,  and  would  therefore  fearlessly  receive  him  to 
friendly  intercourse.  If  the  Lord  of  darkness  had  seen  a  Being  unlike  himself 
coming  to  meet  him,  he  would  doubtless  have  attacked  him  with  all  his  forces, 
and  very  many  ill  consequences  might  have  followed.  That  First  Man  of  the 
Manichajans,  therefore,  was,  we  have  no  doubt,  a  giant  of  immense  stature,  and 
fully  equal  to  his  adversary  in  magnitude.  The  King  of  darkness,  (in  the  Epis- 
tola  Fundamenti  of  Manes,  apud  August,  de  natura  boni  c.  46.  p.  366.)  called 
liim  :  Magnum  ilium,  qui  gloriosus  apparuit.  This  could  not  refer  to  his  vioral 
greatness.  His  armour  also,  or  his  vestments,  were  the  five  celestial  elements, 
by  the  efficacy  of  which  the  five  evil  elements  were  to  be  subdued.  Many  souls, 
likewise,  or  citizens  of  the  world  of  light,  were  in  his  train. 

I  now  come  to  the  conflict  between  these  giante. — As  has  been  remarked, 
God,  in  his  wisdom,  would  not  have  his  General  go  into  a  pitched  battle  with 
the  King  of  darkness ;  but  he  wished  that  the  enemy  might  be  circumvented, 
and  artfully  diverted  from  fighting  against  the  light.  And  hence,  as  before  ob- 
served, he  opposed  to  him  an  amiable  Commander,  of  the  same  form  with  the 
Demon,  that  so  the  Prince  of  darkness  might  take  him  to  be  one  of  his  own 
race. — And  he  further  bid  him  approach  the  adversary  blandly  and  craftily;  and 
using  no  violence,  to  inject  and  infuse  the  celestial  elements,  with  which  he  was 
clad,  into  the  elements  of  the  adverse  party.     For  pursuing  this  course,  there 


War  of  the   Gods.  309 

were  several  reasons.  Fist,  God  hoped,  that  the  princes  of  darkness  would  be- 
come so  intensely  occupied  and  engrossed  with  these  new  and  untried  elements, 
that  they  would  forget  the  war  against  the  world  of  light.  And  secondly,  he 
supposed  that  these  elements,  on  being  introduced  into  depraved  matter,  would 
subdue  its  virulence  and  rage,  so  that  it  could  be  managed.  And  lastly,  he  ex- 
pected that  the  celestial  matter,  when  joined  with  depraved  matter,  would  gra- 
dually  pervade  and  molify  it,  so  that  afterwards  it  might  easily  be  driven  back 
again,  with  its  princes,  into  the  wretched  world  from  which  it  came.  These  things 
are  well  attested  by  the  writings  of  Manes  and  his  disciples,  which  have  reached 
us.     Manes,  in  his  Book  of  Mysteries,  (apud  Tiium  Bostrens.  L.  i.  p.  68.)  says: 

'O  St  dya^oi  SvvAfxiv  airoaTiKKil  TivUf  ^uKa^dLO-av  fA.i)i  Sin^iv  TOvs'ofOvSi  to  Si  d\«3-ij 
ScXtap  io-ofAtvuv  Eis  dKov<riov  tm  l/xh  o-cDtpfovia-fAoy.  o  Sm  koi  yeyovi.  Francis  Turria- 
nus  has  badly  translated  this  passage,  as  well  as  many  others  in  Titus.  I  will 
therefore  render  it  so  as  to  make  it  intelligible.  Bonus  (Deus)  potestatem 
quamdam  mittit,  tanquara  fines  (regni  lucis)  custodituram,  revera  vero  ideo,  ut 
materiae  incitaraenti  seu  escae  loco  esset,  per  quam,  ad  moderationem  contra  vo- 
luntatem  suam  seu  invita  etiam  induceretur.  A  little  after,  Titus  adds,  that  the 
Manichaeans  used  to  say:  Materiam,  tanquam  ferara  belluam,  missae  a  [p.  794.] 
Deo  potestatis  cantione  (i.  e.  by  a  magical  charm)  sopitam  esse:  'n?  St'  iiruSHs 
Tiii  dTToo-TAKria-ns  Suvdf^icus  £Ko;^tV3-«.  The  bishop  does  not  mistake:  for  Manes 
himself,  (in  the  acta  Disput.  cum  Manete,  \  25.  p.  41.  edit.  Zaccag.)  elucidates 
his  doctrine  by  this  very  similitude  taken  from  wild  beasts  :  Similis  est  malignus 
ieoni,  qui  irrepere  vult  gregi  boni  pastoris,  (i.  e.  strives  to  invade  the  world  of 
light,  and  to  drive  away  the  sheep  of  God,  or  the  blessed  jEons,)  quod  cum  pas- 
tor viderit,  fodit  foveam  ingentem,  et  de  grege  tulit  unum  hoedum  (i.  o.  he  ex- 
poses to  him  a  small  portion  of  the  celestial  matter,)  et  jactavit  in  foveam,  quern 
leo  invadere  desiderans,  cum  ingenti  indignatione  voluit  earn  absorbere  et  ac- 
currens  ad  foveam  decidit  in  eam,  ascendendi  inde  sursum  non  habens  vires, 
quem  pastor  apprehensum  pro  prudentia  sua  in  cavea  concludit,  atque  hoedum, 
qui  cum  ipso  fuerit  in  fovea,  incolumem  conservavit.  Ex  hoc  ergo  infirmatus 
est  malignus,  ultra  jam  leone  non  habente  potestatem  faciendi  aliquid,  et  salva- 
bitur  omne  animarum  genus  ac  restituetur,  quod  perierat,  proprio  suo  gregi. 
We  shall  soon  see,  that  by  this  language  Manes  not  badly  explains  his  views. 
Fortunatus,  the  Manichsean,  (in  Disput.  cum  Avgustino  II.  p.  78.)  says:  In  con- 
traria  naturu  esse  animam  dicimus,  ideo,  ut  contrarioe  naturee  raodum  imponeret: 
modo  imposito  contraria3  natura3,  sumit  eamdem  Deus.  And  again,  (1.  c.  p.  57.) 
Fortunatus  says :  Apparet  -  -  missas  esse  animas  contra  contrariam  naturara, 
ut  eamdem  sua  passione  subjicientes,  victoria  Deo  redderetur.  I  omit  the  testi- 
monies oi  Augustine,  Alexander  of  Lycopolis,  Damascenus,  and  others;  because 
they  are  not  needed. 

The  First  Man  followed  exactly  the  pleasure  of  his  Lord  who  sent  him 
forth,  and  approached  the  enemy  with  guile  and  cunning.  Says  Augustine, 
(contra  Faustum  L.  ii.  c.  4.  p.  134.)  Primum  liominem  vestruni  dicitis,  secun- 
dum hostium  voluntatcm,  quo  eos  ca-peret,  elementa  (jua3  portabat  muta.sse  ac 
vertisse,  ut  regnum,  quod  dicitis,  falsitatis,  in  sua  natura  manens,  non  fallaciter 
dimicaret,  et  substantia  veritatis  mutabilis  appareret,  w/ /aZ/c/-e/.  -  -  liunc  Pri. 


310  Century  III.— Section  44. 

mum  Ilominem  l:\U(iati^,  quia  muiabilibus  et  mendacibus  formis  cum  adversa 
gente  pugnavit.  -  -  Manichccus  annuntiat  Primum  Hominem  nescio  quibus  fal- 
lacibus  elementis  quinque  vestitum.  Again,  he  says,  (L.  xi.  c.  3.  p.  157.): 
Manes  annuntiat  nescio  quern  Primum  Hominem,  nee  de  terra  terrenum,  nee 
factum  in  aniinam  viventem,  sed  de  substantia  Dei,  id  ipsum  existentem  quod 
Deus  est,  membra  sua,  vel  vestimenta  sua,  vel  arma  sua,  id  est,  quinque  ele- 
menta,  cum  et  ipsa  nihil  aliud  essent,  quam  substantia  Dei,  in  tenebrarum  gente 
mer>i.-se,  ut  inquinata  caperentur.  The  closing  words  in  this  passage,  I  sus- 
pect, have  been  corrupted.  For,  beyond  all  doubt,  God  did  not  wish  the  celes- 
tial elements  to  be  received  and  become  defiled,  but  to  remain  pure ;  and  by 
[p.  795.]  them  to  capture  the  princes  of  darkness.  So  Augustine  expressly  states  in 
the  previously  cited  passage.  I  therefore  choose  to  read :  Ut  per  inquinata  (i.  e.  by 
the  enemies)  caperentur.  Those  who  think  the  passage  correct  as  it  stands^ 
must  suppose,  that  Augustine  illy  expressed  the  views  of  Manes.  The  First 
Man,  therefore,  in  order  tlie  more  completely  to  deceive  the  race  of  darkness, 
did  not  present  to  them  the  celestial  elements  with  which  he  was  armed  or  clad, 
just  as  they  were,  but  he  changed  their  appearance.  And,  as  he  himself  ap- 
peared like  to  the  Prince  of  darkness,  so  he  gave  to  his  armor  the  appearance  of 
the  corrupt  elements,  or  of  the  enemy's  armor,  so  that  he  might  not  be  shocked 
at  it.  And  yet  there  is  some  obscurity  here,  which  is  not  worth  the  pains  of 
an  explanation. 

The  artifice  of  the  First  Man  was  partially  successful.  The  Prince  of  dark- 
ness, together  with  his  friends  and  associates,  greedily  seized  the  celestial  mat- 
ter, liberally  offered,  and  satiated  himself  with  it.  This  calmed  the  Demon's 
furious  passions,  and  checked  his  ardor  for  invading  the  world  of  light.  It 
might  fitly  be  called  a  carminative,  which  soothed  his  rage  in  spite  of  him,  and 
subdued  his  inclination  to  evil ;  or,  according  to  the  simile  of  Manes^  it  operated 
like  a  magical  charm,  which  has  the  effect  of  making  wild  beasts  and  serpents 
harmless.  S.iys  Manes,  (apud  Titum  Bostrens.  L.  i.  p.  68.)  :  Qiaa-api-ivn  «  vkh 
riiy   drroyTdKiia-av  J'uvaufv   Trfco-riKla-trHyt  /utv   tbf  ipa^ucra.     'Of/uvi  cTg  TrXiiovi  Xafiovo-X 

Ta^Titv  KuTEinit  icui  iS'i^i  TpoTTov  Tivo.  o)(77rif>  3-«/)/ov.  Quum  vldisset  materia  potes- 
tatem  missam,  (i.  e.  when  the  Demon  saw  the  First  Man,  clothed  in  the  five 
celestial  elements,  and  pretending  friendship,)  amore  capta  eoncupivit  eam,  et 
ardenti(.re  appetitu  prehensam  absorbuit,  et  quodammodo  tanquam  bellua  ligata 
est.  And  thus  the  principal  danger  to  the  world  of  light  was  indeed  averted  : 
but  another  evil  sprung  up  in  place  of  it;  and  the  issue  of  the  scheme  was  not, 
in  all  respects,  happy. — For,  First ;  While  the  First  Man,  by  injecting  the 
celestial  matter  into  the  darkness,  aimed  to  capture  the  Prince  of  evil  and  his 
associates ;  the  latter,  on  the  other  hand,  grasped  the  celestial  elements  and 
souls,  and  subjected  them  to  his  power.  And  four  of  the  elements,  namely, 
darkness,  water,  wind  and  good  fire,  he  so  combined  with  the  depraved  ele- 
ments, that  no  force  could  possibly  separate  them.  And  no  small  part  of  the 
celestial  matter,  especially  of  the  light  or  the  souls,  he  and  his  officers  devoured; 
and,  as  I  may  say,  converted  into  their  blood  and  juices.  Says  Tyrbo,  (in  the 
Acta  Disput.  Archelai,  ^  6.  p.  10.)  :  At  vero  tenebrarum  principes,  repugnantes 
ei,  comederunt  de  armatura  ejus,  quod  est  anima.     Tunc  ibi  vehementer  afllictus 


War  of  the   Gods.  311 

e«^t  deorsum  Primus  Homo  a  tencbris.  And,  (§  11.  p.  20.)  Deu«  non  habet 
partem  ouin  imuido,  ncc  gaudet  super  eo,  quod  ab  initio  furtum  passus  sit  a 
Principihus  (tenebrarum)  et  aborta  fuerit  ei  tribuhitio.  We  siniU  hereafter  cito 
the  testimony  of  Manes  himself,  respecting  this  light  which  was  devoured  by 
the  Princes  of  darkness.  In  the  tirst  of  tliese  passages,  Tyrbo  did  not  mistake, 
(as  a  very  learned  man  supposes,)  in  saying,  the  armor  of  the  First  [p.  796.] 
Man  was  soul.  It  is  indeed  true,  as  that  worthy  man  says,  that  the  Manichajana 
considered  souls  as  formed  of  light,  or  as  particles  of  that  eternal  light  which  in 
invisible  to  our  organs :  but  the  armor  of  the  First  Man  was  not  merely  light, 
but  also  all  the  five  celestial  elements.  And  it  escaped  his  recollection,  that  all 
the  Manicliffian  elements  were  animated  :  and  that  mention  is  made  in  theit 
schools,  of  various  kinds  of  souls.  Rational  souls,  which  hold  the  highest 
rank,  are  the  daughters  of  light,  or  particles  from  it.  But,  besides  these  noblei 
souls,  others  likewise,  of  an  inferior  order,  proceed  from  the  other  elements. 
Tijrbo  therefore  could  truly  say,  the  armor  of  the  First  Man  was  soul ;  that  is, 
all  kinds  of  souls  existed  in  the  live  elements  with  which  he  was  invested.  But 
I  will  sul.ijoin  a  passage  from  Augustine,  respecting  the  souls  subdued  and  op- 
pressed in  that  first  conflict  between  light  and  darkness,  (from  his  Liber  de 
natura  boni,  c.  42.  p.  363.)  :  Dicunt  etiam  nonnullas  animas,  quas  volunt  esse 
de  substantia  Dei  et  ejusdem  omiiino  naturaj,  quae  non  sponte  peccaverint,  sed 
a  gente  tenebrarum,  quam  mali  naturam  dicunt,  ad  qiiam  dehellandam,  non  ultrot 
sed  Patris  imferio  descender iint,  superatse  et  oppressae  sint,  affigi  in  feternum 
horribili  globo  animarum.  This,  Augustine  confirms  by  the  Epistola  Funda- 
menti  of  Manes ;  in  which,  speaking  of  these  souls.  Manes  says :  Quod  errare 
se  a  priori  lucida  sua  natura  passa3  sint:  unde,  et  adhserebunt  iis  rebus  aniraae 
eaedem,  quas  dilexerunt,  relictas  in  codem  tenebrarum  globo,  suis  merilis  id  sibi 
conquirentes.  The  Princes  of  darkness,  therefore,  so  connected  with  them- 
selves a  great  number  of  souls,  that  those  souls  changed  their  nature,  and  volun- 
tarily assumed  the  character  of  darkness ;  and  therefore,  they  could  not  in  any- 
way be  converted  to  God  and  recovered.  And  to  this  great  evil,  others  were 
added.  For, — Secondly ;  The  Prince  of  darkness  and  his  associates,  devoured 
the  son  of  the  First  Man,  whose  name  was  Jesus.  This  part  of  the  Manichaean 
system  is  involved  in  much  obscurity,  and  cannot  be  elucidated  by  clear  and 
explicit  testimonies.  Yet  I  hope  to  make  it  intelligible.  In  the  first  place,  it  is 
certain  that  the  First  Man,  the  Being  who  encountered  the  Prince  of  darkness, 
had  a  son  named  Jesus.  Deceived  by  this  name,  (as  Beausobrs  has  observed, 
vol.  ii.  p.  554.)  Augustine  confounds  in  many  places  this  son  of  the  First  Man, 
with  the  Son  of  God  our  Savior ;  and  therefore  calls  him  not  only  Jesus,  but 
also  Christ.  Thus,  he  says,  (contra  Faustum  L.  ii.  c.  4.  p.  134.)  :  Hujus  Pritni 
Horainis  filium  credi  vultis  Dominum  Jesum  Christum.  Very  faulty!  The 
Manichroans  had  two  Jesuses,  an  impassive  and  a  passive,  a  Savior  of  souls  and 
a  Savior  of  bodies.  The  former,  the  Savior  of  souls,  or  the  impassive  JesuSy 
was  the  son  of  eternal  light  or  of  God,  and  was  himself  all  light.  The  latter, 
the  passive  Jesus,  who  imparts  health  and  strength  to  bodies,  was  the  son  of 
the  First  Man.  The  former  was  distinguished  by  the  surname  Christ ;  [p.  797.] 
which  the  Manichaeans  never  applied  to  the   latter.     Hence,  whenever  Augus- 


312  Century  Ill.—Section  44. 

tine  speaks  of  Christ  as  combined  with  fruits,  herbs,  products  of  the  earth,  and 
stars,  and  as  being  eaten  by  men,  (and  he  speaks  thus  very  often,)  he  blunders, 
through  ignorance  of  the  Manichaean  doctrines.  Thus  he  says,  (1.  c.  p.  134.): 
Deliramenta  vestra  vos  cogunt,  non  solum  in  coelo  atque  in  omnibus  stellis, 
sed  etiam  in  terra  atque  in  omnibus,  qua;  nascuntur  in  ea,  confixum  et  colliga- 
tum  atque  concretum  Ciu-istum  dicere,  non  jam  Salvatorem  vestrum,  sed  a  vo- 
bis  salvandum.  Instead  of  Christ  he  should  have  said  Jes?/5.— Whether  the 
First  Man  begat  this  son,  before  he  marched  against  the  army  of  darkness,  or 
in  the  heat  of  the  contest,  I  do  not  find  any  where  stated.  But  we  may  con- 
jecture, that  being  reduced  to  straits  by  the  enemy,  he  collected  his  energies, 
and  produced  from  himself  this  potent  Being,  in  order  to  have  an  associate  in 
the  fight.  The  reason  for  the  name,  is  stated  by  Faustus  the  Manicheean,  (apud 
Atigust.  L.  XX.  c.  2.  p.  237.)  where  he  says,  that  this  Jesus  is  the  life  and  health 
of  men.  It  was  the  practice  of  the  Manichseans,  as  we  have  before  shown,  to 
give  names  to  the  celestial  Beings  whom  they  mention,  derived  from  the  charac- 
ter and  attributes  of  those  Beings.  As  therefore,  this  son  of  the  First  Man 
afforded  health  (sulutem), — not  indeed  to  souls, — but  to  bodies,  which  he 
nourished,  strengthened  and  sustained,  he  was  called  Jesns ;  a  name  derived, 
as  is  well  known,  from  the  Syriac  Jeshua,  servavit.  For  Manes  vvrote  in  Syriac; 
and  therefore  he  gave  to  this  son  of  the  First  Man  a  Syriac  or  Hebrew  name, 
indicative  of  his  nature. — If  now  it  be  asked,  What  sort  of  a  Being  was  this 
Jesus  1  I  answer,  without  hesitation.  He  was  a  very  large  mass  of  celestial 
matter,  in  which  resided  vital  power,  or  a  living  soul,  and  likewise  ability  to 
communicate  of  that  living  soul  to  others.  When  God  saw  the  Prince  of  dark- 
ness invading  his  realm,  he  produced  from  himself  a  kind  of  sixth  element,  dif- 
ferent from  the  other  five  ;  namely,  the  Mother  of  Life,  that  is,  a  Being  endowed 
with  the  power  of  conferring  life  on  things  around  her.  And  she  produced  the 
First  Man.  And  he,  having  received  from  his  mother  that  vital  power,  or  if  you 
choose,  a  sentient  soul,  poured  it  out  in  the  conflict  with  the  king  of  darkness, 
either  by  the  command  of  God,  or  from  his  own  choice.  The  Maichseans  need- 
ed a  sixth  element  of  this  character,  in  order  to  account  for  the  production  of 
fruits  and  useful  plants  and  herbs;  for  these  could  not  easily  be  deduced  from 
the  nature  and  powers  of  the  five  other  elements.  Moreover,  this  Jesus,  the 
son  of  the  First  Man,  is  in  the  earth  ;  from  which  he  is  drawn  forth,  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  resident  in  the  highest  ether,  and  is  diffused  throughout  the  natural 
world.  Hence  Faustus,  before  quoted,  (apud  August.  L.  xx.  e.  2.  p.  237.)  says: 
Terram  ex  Spiritus  sancti  profusione  concipere,  atque  Patibilem  Jesum  gignere, 
omni  suspensum  ex  ligno.  It  is  very  clear,  that  he  means  the  fruits  of  trees; 
and  these  he  calls  Jesus,  because  they  contain  a  portion  of  the  sentient  soul 
[p.  798.]  generated  by  the  First  Man.  For  the  Manichecans  fully  believed,  that  all 
fruits,  pulse,  plants,  and  whatever  grows  out  of  the  earth,  contained  Jesus,  or 
sensitive  life.  Thus  Augustine,  (de  Haeres.  c.  42.  p.  12.)  says:  Herbas  etiam 
atque  arbores  sic  putant  vivere,  ut  vitam,  quae  illis  inest,  et  senlire  credant  et 
dolere,  cum  lajduntur :  nee  aliquid  inde  sine  cruciatu  eorum  quemquam  posse 
vellere  aut  earpere.  These  remarks,  which  might  be  confirmed  by  many  other 
citations,  make  the  Passive  Jesus,  if  I  mistake  not,  perfectly  intelligible.     Au- 


War  of  the  Gods.  313 

gusiine  often  debated  with  Manichaeans  on  this  subject,  sometimea  a  ery  cor- 
rectly, but  frequently  not  without  some  mistakes ;  for  instance,  when  he  repre- 
sents, or  falsely  supposes,  that  this  limng  soul,  which  the  Maniehajans  honored 
with  the  name  Jesus,  was  the  same  with  Jesus  our  Savior.  I  will  cite  a  pas- 
sage, in  which  he  avoids  error,  (de  moribus  Manicha3orum,  L.  ii.  c.  1^  16.  0pp. 
tom.  i.  p.  554.)  :  Quoniam,  inquit  (Manes),  membrum  Dei  (i.  e.  Jesus,  the  son 
of  the  First  Man)  malorum  substantice  conmixtura  est,  ut  eam  refrenaret  atque 
a  summo  furore  comprimeret  (sic  enim  dicitis),  de  commixta  utraque  naturtV  id 
est,  boni  et  mali,  mundus  est  fabricatus.  Pars  autem  ilia  divina  ex  omni  parte 
muiidiquotidie  purgatur  et  in  sua  regna  resumitur  :  sed  luce  per  terrarn  exhalans 
et  ad  caelum  tendens  incurrit  in  stirpes,  quoniam  radicibus  terrae  affiguntur,  atque 
ita  omnes  herbas  et  arbusta  omnia  fecundat  et  vegetat.  -  -  Primo  quaro,  unde 
doceatis  in  frumentis  ac  legumine  et  oleribus  et  floribus  et  pomis  inesse  istam, 
nescio  quam,  partem  Dei.  Ex  ipso  coloris  nitore,  inquiunt,  et  odoris  jucundi- 
tate  et  saporis  suavitate  manifestum  est.  For  much  more  of  the  like  import,  I 
refer  the  reader  to  Augustine's  works. — A  large  part  of  the  mystery  of  the  Pas- 
sire  Jesus,  is  now  explained :  and  it  remains,  that  we  substantiate  what  we  have 
said,  that  this  Jesus  was  swallowed  by  the  Prince  of  darkness,  in  the  conflict 
with  the  First  Man.  And  this  we  are  able  to  do,  from  the  declaration  of  Ma- 
nes himself.  Although  this  Jesus  ascends  from  the  earth  in  vegetables  and 
trees  and  plants,  yet  he  does  not  reside  in  the  earth,  but  in  the  huge  and  mon- 
strous bodies  of  the  Prince  of  darkness  and  his  compeers ;  and  from  their  bodies 
he  is  expressed,  by  a  wonderful  artifice  of  God,  descends  into  the  earth,  and  is 
thence  elicited  by  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  is  distributed  through 
the  natural  world.  The  artifice  of  God,  by  which  the  Demons  are  forced  to 
eject  the  living  soul  descended  from  the  First  Man,  will  be  explained  elsewhere. 
We  now  merely  show,  from  the  declarations  of  Manes,  that  it  docs  flow  out 
from  the  body  of  the  Demon  upon  the  earth.  The  passage  I  quote,  is  in  the 
seventh  book  of  Manes'  Thesaurus,  (apud  August,  de  natura  boni,c.  44.  p.  366.) : 
Beatus  Pater  -  -  pro  insita  sibi  elementia  fert  opem,  qua  exuitur  et  liberatur 
ab  impiis  retinaculis  et  angustiis  atque  angoribus  suaxitalis  substantia.  -  -  Hoc 
enim  viso  decoro,  (of  this,  hereafter,)  illorum  (DcTmonum)  ardor  et  concu-  [p.  799.] 
piscentiacrescit,  atque  hoc  modo  vinculum  pessimarumcogitationum  earum  solvi- 
tur,  vivaque  anima  (not  the  rational  >-on\,)quce.  eorundem  membris  tenebatur,  hac 
occasione  laxata  evadit.  -  -  Id  vero  quod  adhuc  adver.si  generis  maculas  portat, 
per  aestus  atque  calores  particulatim  descendit,  atque  arboribus,  celerisque  plan- 
ialionibus  ac  satis  omnibus  miscetur.  -  -  Atque  ex  isto  aspectu  decoro  vitae  pars, 
quae  in  earundum  membris  habetur,  laxata  deducitur  per  calores  in  terram,  «Sic. 
as  hereafter  will  be  cited. — Now,  as  it  is  manifest  from  this  passage,  that  the 
living  sensitive  soul  in  plants,  fruits  and  trees,  descends  into  our  earth  from  the 
bodies  of  the  Demons,  and  as  this  soul  is  by  the  Manichaeans  called  the  Pas- 
sive Jesus,  and  the  son  of  the  First  Man  ;  it  is  certain,  that  the  Demon  and  his 
associates  must  have  devoured  and  swallowed  this  intire  Jesus. — But  I  proceed : 
Thirdly:  In  that  conflict,  the  First  Man  was  reduced  to  the  greatest  extrenii- 
ties.  For  the  King  of  darkness  almost  had  him  in  his  power ;  and,  as  the  thing 
itself  shows,  he  wished  to  return  with  all  his  plunder,  to  his  own  country,  the 


314  Century  IIL — Section  44. 

realm  of  darkness.  And  if  he  could  have  done  so,  that  exquisite  portio.i  of  the 
divine  nature  and  of  the  celestial  elements,  which  the  Demon  had  made  his  own, 
would  have  been  for  evef  miserable  and  unhappy.  For  God  neither  has  any  power 
over  the  world  of  darkness,  which  is  equally  eternal  and  abiding  with  the  world 
of  light ;  nor  can  he  overthrow  and  destroy  it.  Tyrho  says,  (in  the  Acta  Ar- 
ch^lai,  5  7.  p.  10.)  :  Tunc  ibi  vehementer  afflictus  est  deorsum  Primus  Homo  a 
tenebnis,  et  nisi  orantem  eum  exaudisset  Pater,  et  misisset  alteram  virtutem, 
quae  processerat  ex  se,  quae  dicitur  Spirilus  Vivens  {^^v  TrviZfxu),  et  descendens 
porrexisset  ei  dexteram,  et  eduxisset  eum  de  tenebris,  (he  was  therefore  already 
a  prisoner  of  the  King  of  darkness,)  olim  Primus  Homo  detcntus  perielitaretur. 
(That  is,  he  would  have  been  carried  away,  by  the  Lord  of  evil,  into  the  world  of 
darkness.) 

When,  therefore,  victory  was  almost  in  the  hands  of  the  Prince  of  darkness, 
on  the  General's  imploring  succor,  God  sent  a  more  powerful  commander  from 
the  world  of  light,  to  renew  the  conflict,  and  to  cut  off  the  Demon's  retreat  with 
his  plunder.  The  Manichasans  tell  us,  that  this  new  commander  was  procreated 
by  God  himself;  whereas  the  former  General  had  a  mother,  who  was  indeed  of 
divine  origin,  but  inferior  to  God.  The  name  of  the  new  General  was,  the 
Living  Spirit.  He  was  called  Spirit,  because  he  had  not  a  human  form,  but 
was  a  lucid  mass,  like  the  Father.  This  we  prove  from  the  language  of  Manes, 
in  his  Epistola  Fundamenti,  (apud  August,  de  natura  boni,  c.  46.  p.  366.)  where 
he  represents  the  Demon  as  thus  addressing  his  fellow-warriors,  respecting  this 
second  General  from  the  world  of  liglit:  Quid  vobis  videtur  maximum  line 
[p.  800.]  Lumeii  quod  oritur?  Intuemini,  quemadmodum  polum  movet,  concutit 
plurimas  potestates.  He  was  called  Living  Spirit,  because  he  lives  in  and  of 
himself,  being  the  immediate  offspring  of  God,  and  did  not,  like  the  First  Man, 
derive  his  existence  from  a  Being  inferior  to  God.  This  second  General  did  not 
proceed  alone,  but  had  three  Virtues  of  immense  power  for  his  associates.  Thus 
Tyrho,  (I.  c.  p.  11.) :  Tunc  Vivens  Spiritus — indutus  alias  tres  virtutes,  descen- 
dens  eduxit  (i.  e.  seized)  Principes  (tenebrarum),  et  crucifixit  eos  in  firmamento. 
He  therefore  did  not  assail  the  foe,  as  his  predecessor  did,  w^th  artifice  and 
stratagem,  but  with  open  combat;  and  he  bound  the  vanquished,  so  that  they 
could  not  retreat,  and  return  with  their  rich  plunder  to  their  country.  Yet,  in 
this  second  campaign,  although  it  was  successful,  there  was  an  occurrence  not 
anticipated,  and  adverse  to  the  designs  of  God.  The  General  of  light  had  seized 
many  of  the  animals,  both  male  and  female,  which  lived  in  the  elements  of  dark- 
ness; and  some  of  the  females,  being  with  young,  were  unable  to  bear  the  rapid 
motions  of  the  heavens,  and  cast  their  young  prematurely.  These  abortions 
afterwards  fell  from  heaven  upon  this  earth,  and  propagated  themselves  in  our 
world,  contrary  to  the  pleasure  of  God.  Hence  arose  our  animals,  especially 
the  wild,  noxious,  and  venimous,  which  cause  so  much  trouble  and  danger  to 
men.  A  fable  of  this  sort  was  necessary  for  the  Manichaeans,  to  enable  them 
to  answer  the  inquiry.  Whence  originated  the  pernicious  and  hurtful  animals, 
the  serpents,  insects,  lions,  tigers,  &c.  with  which  our  world  abounds.  The 
fable  is  puerile;  yet  it  harmonizes  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  sys- 
tem.    Says  Augustine,  (contra  Faustum,  L.  vi.  c.  8.  p.  149.):  Dicunt,  in  ilia 


War  of  the   Gods.  31 5 

pujrna,  quando  Primus  eormn  Homo  tenebrarum  g^entem  elementis  falljicibus 
irreiivit,  utriusquc  soxus  Principibus  indidem  captis  -  -  in  qiiibus  erant  etiam 
tbeininte  aliquae  prceornaiites:  quae  cum  ccuhim  rotari  ca3pisset,  candoin  vcrtijriiK'in 
ferre  non  valeiites,  conceptus  suos  abortu  excussisse,  oosdcinque  abortivos  foe- 
tus et  masculoa  et  foeminas  de  coelo  in  terram  cecidisse,  vixisse,  crevisse,  concu- 
buisse,  genuissc.  Hinc  esse  dicunt  originem  carnium  omnium,  quae  moventur 
in  terra,  in  aqua,  in  aere.  Either  this  passage  has  been  corrupted,  which  is  very 
prol>able,  or  Augustine  erred  in  stating  the  opinion  of  the  Manichacans  respect'- 
ing  the  origin  of  our  animals.  For  he  speaks  as  if  these  animals  were  the  off- 
spring of  the  Princes  of  darkness,  or  rather  of  their  wives;  which  was  not  true. 
For  the  chiefs  of  darkness  begat  beings  like  themselves,  or  having  the  human 
form.  And  in  like  manner,  the  animals  of  the  world  of  darkness  propagated 
their  own  genera  and  species.  Besides,  there  is  another  passage  of  Augustine, 
(contra  Faust.  L.  xxi.  c.  12.  p.  254.)  in  which  he  expressl}'-  tells  us,  our  animals 
originated  from  the  animals  captured  in  that  war:  Itane  in  ilia  gente  non  erat 
sanitas  corporum,  in  qua  et  nasci — et  ita  perdurare  potuerunt  ilia  animaUa,  ut 
quibusdam  eorum  gravidis,  sicut  desipiunt,  captis,  et  in  cceIo  colligatis,  ncc  sal- 
lim  pleni  temporis,  sed  abortivi  foetus  de  tam  excelso  in  terram  caden-  [p.  801.] 
tes  et  vivere  potuerint  et  crescerc,  et  ista  carnium,  quae  nunc  sunt  innuraerabilia, 
genera  propagare?  There  is  also  another  fault  in  that  passage  of  Augustine: 
for  he  attributes  the  victory  over  the  leaders  of  darkness,  to  the  First  Man  : 
but  that  honor  did  not  belong  to  him,  as  we  have  shown,  but  to  the  Living 
Spirit,  the  First  Man  having  been  vanquished. 

It  was  necessary  for  Manes  to  suppose  such  an  unfortunate  battle  of  the 
first  General  of  the  world  of  light.  For  he  had  to  show,  whence  it  arose,  that 
so  many  divine  essences  and  particles  of  celestial  matter  became  commingled 
with  the  corrupt  elements  and  malignant  bodies,  and  exposed  in  them  to  so 
great  evils,  sorrows,  and  sufferings,  during  so  many  ages.  The  blame  could 
not  be  charged  on  God;  for  he,  according  to  Manichaean  views,  is  the  kindest  of 
Beings,  and  cannot  hurt  any  one.  They  would  have  contradicted  themselves,  if 
they  had  said  that  it  was  God's  will,  that  the  souls  descended  from  him  should 
suffer  numberless  evils  and  sorrows  during  a  very  long  period.  They  iiulecd 
taught,  as  we  may  learn  from  Fortunatus  in  his  discussion  with  Augustine,  that 
souls  become  intangled  in  matter,  not  necessarily,  but  by  the  volition  of  God:  and 
this,  in  a  certain  sense,  they  could  justly  say,  as  appears  from  the  account  we 
have  given  of  the  warfare  of  the  First  Man.  The  adversaries  of  the  Manichaj- 
ans,  including  Augustine,  (p.  78.)  assailed  this  their  doctrine,  with  the  following 
interrogatory:  Quid  opus  erat  tanta  malaanimam  pati  per  tantum  tempus,  donee 
mundus  finiatur?  (See  Titus  Bostrens.  contra  Manichseos,  L  I.  p.  91.  92.  &i^c.) 
To  this  question,  Fortunatus,  who  was  not  master  of  the  religion  he  professed, 
acknowledges,  that  he  could  give  no  answer:  Quid  ergo  dicturus  sum?  But 
Manes  had  foreseen  the  question ;  and  he  furnished  a  sort  of  answer  to  it.  The 
answer  is:  Tliat  it  is  not  God's  fault  that  souls  are  so  long  detained  in  matter, 
for  he  cannot  possibly  will  evil  to  any  being;  but  it  was  the  fault  of  his  Gene- 
ral, the  First  Man,  who,  not  being  sufficiently  on  his  guard,  the  celestial  matter 
and  the  divine  essence  became  completely  intermixed  with  depraved  matter  in 


316  Century  III.— Section  45. 

the  battle,  and  therefore  cannot  now  be  separated  from  it,  except  by  a  long  pro- 
cess. In  this  way,  indeed,  the  difficulty  which  stumbled  Forlunatus  is  solved, 
and  God  is  made  innocent  of  the  many  evils  which  good  souls  feel  and  perform 
in  their  long  exile:  but  another  blot,  namely  that  of  ignorance,  is  fastened  upon 
him.  For  he  is  made  to  be  ignorant  of  future  events,  or  not  to  have  foreseen, 
that  the  First  Man  would  commit  errors,  and  be  overcome  in  the  conflict  with 
the  Prince  of  darkness.  This,  however,  the  Manichaeans  readily  conceded ;  for 
they  denied  to  God  other  perfections  besides  that  of  foreknowledge.  We  may 
here  remark, — what  also  suggests  itself  on  other  occasions,  that  Manes,  although 
he  may  lack  sagacity  and  wisdom,  never  lacks  ingenuity.  For  he  clearly  per- 
ceived, that  God  would  be  judged  imbecile  and  weak,  if  he  taught  that  the  evil 
Principle,  contrary  to  the  will  and  the  efforts  of  God,  got  possession  of  souls 
[p.  802.]  and  the  celestial  matter;  and  unkind  and  cruel,  if  he  taught,  that  it  was 
according  to  the  divine  pleasure,  that  innocent  souls  for  so  many  ages  were  in 
affliction  and  in  conflict  with  depraved  matter;  and  therefore,  to  escape  tliese 
difficulties,  he  made  him  ignorant  of  the  future.  -  -  In  this  part  of  my  dis- 
cussion, several  new  views  are  advanced;  but  they  are  all  based  on  reliable 
authorities.  ]t  is  therefore  unnecessary  to  weary  the  reader,  by  stating  how 
far,  and  why,  I  deviate  from  other  writers  on  Manichaeism,  and  especially  from 
Bcausobre. 

S    XLV.      Oriijin,  composition  and   character   of   Man.     In    the 

commencement  of  the  new  campaignl,  the  Prince  of  darkness, 
being  terrified  with  the  splendor  of  the  Living  Spirit^  and  fore- 
seeing that  the  particles  of  divine  light,  or  the  rational  souls  de- 
voured bj  him  and  his  companions,  would  be  wrested  from  them, 
formed  a  cunning  device  for  avoiding,  in  a  measure,  so  great  a 
loss.  For  he  persuaded  his  chiefs  to  transfer  into  their  wives  by 
coition  those  portions  of  light  which  were  in  them  :  and  the  chil- 
dren thus  produced,  he  himself  devoured,  and  of  course  with 
them  all  the  souls :  and  they  being  thus  incorporated  with  his 
blood  and  fluids,  he  embraced  his  wife,  and  so  begat  the  first  man 
Ad(xm^  in  part  resembling  the  celestial  First  Man  whom  he  had 
seen,  and  in  part  like  himself  (')  When  all  the  souls  which  the 
Princes  of  darkness  had  captured,  were  in  this  manner  inclosed 
in  the  body  of  Adam  only,  and  thus  placed  beyond  the  power  of 
the  Living  Spirit,  the  King  of  darkness  gave  to  Adam  a  wife, 
namely  LJve  ;  and  Adam,  being  allured  by  her  beaut}^,  copulated 
with  her  contrary  to  the  will  of  God :  and  thus  the  miserable 
race  of  mortals  peopling  our  globe,  began  to  exist  and  to  be  pro- 
pagated.Q  These  unhappy  children  of  Adam  consist  of  a  body 
and  lico  soids.     Their  body  is  composed  of  depraved  matter,  and 


Formation  of  Maji.  Hi  / 

belongs  wholly  to  the  King  of  darkness,  the  fixther  of  Adam ; 
and  CDnscqucntly,  when  a  man  dies  it  returns  to  its  original 
source.  Of  their  two  souls,  the  one  is  animal,  sentient,  and  con- 
cupiscent, and  was  derived  from  the  same  Prince  of  evil ;  but  tlie 
other^  which  possesses  reason,  and  is  alone  immortal,  is  a  pariude 
of  that  divine  light  which  was  captured  by  the  race  of  darkness 
in  tlie  contest  with  the  First  Man^  and  was  afterwards  by  their 
Prince  infused  Avholly  into  the  body  of  Adam,  and  thence  distri- 
buted among  all  his  offspring,  male  and  female.  It  hence  appears, 
whence  arose  that  mixture  of  good  and  evil  in  indivi-  Q).  808.] 
dual  men,  and  the  perpetual  conflict  between  reason  and  con- 
cupiscence.('') 

(1)  That  the  first  human  beings  were  formed  by  the  Prince  of  evil,  mid  con- 
sequently, that  the  whole  race  of  men  are  his  descendants;  and  also  that  mar- 
riages, by  which  the  race  is  propagated,  were  his  device ;  all  the  ancient  writers 
declare,  and  on  tliis  subject  there  can  be  no  doubt  among  such  as  keep  in  sight 
the  origin  of  the  Manichsean  system.  But  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  lirst 
human  beings  were  formed,  there  is  some  disagreement  among  those  on  whose 
testimony  we  must  here  rely.  It  is  fortunate,  however,  that  a  long  extract  from 
the  Epistola  Fundamenti  of  Manes,  which  treated  of  this  very  subject,  has  .been 
preserved  by  Augustine,  and  gives  a  clear  and  perspicuous  account  of  Adam's 
origin.  This,  therefore,  is  to  be  especially  consulted,  and  to  be  exclusively  fol- 
lowed ;  while  the  divergent  and  contrary  statements  of  later  authors,  Theodord 
for  instance,  and  others,  must  be  wholly  rejected,  as  proceeding  from  impure 
.sources.  Beausobre,  who  is  particularly  solicitous  to  make  out  that  Manes  was 
not  a  fool  but  a  philosopher,  exerts  all  the  powers  of  his  superior  genius,  (vol. 
II.  p.  401  &c.)  to  turn  the  fable  of  Manes,  which  we  are  considering,  into  an  al- 
legory ;  the  import  of  which  shall  be,  that  the  Prince  of  darkness  did  not  beget 
the  first  man  and  woman,  but  formed  them  out  of  matter,  which,  as  he  thinks, 
was  called  the  Demon's  wife.  But  Manes  does  not  afford  him  the  slightest 
countenance;  nor  let  drop  one  word  on  which  a  conjecture  can  be  fastened, that 
he  purposed  to  enlighten  the  friend  he  was  addressing  by  any  sort  of  fiction. 
On  the  contrary,  the  Exordium  of  the  Epistle,  (preserved  by  Augustine,  Epistola 
Fundamenti,  p.  114.)  clearly  shows,  that  Manes  uttered  himself  seriously,  and 
according  to  his  real  belief,  aiming  to  give  Paticius  whom  he  addressed  a  naked 
and  simple  statement  of  facts.  He  says :  Ha3c  sunt  salubria  verba  ex  perenni 
et  vivo  fonte,  qua?  qui  audierit,  et  eisdem  primum  crediderit,  deinde  qua?  insinu- 
ant  custodierit,  nunquam  erit  morti  obnoxius,  verum  fcterna  et  glorio«a  vilA 
fruetur.  Nam  profecto  beatus  est  judicandus,  qui  hac  divina  instructus  cogni- 
tione  fuerit,  per  quam  liberatus  in  sempiterna  vita  permanebit.  Can  we  believo 
a  man  would  write  so,  if  he  aimed  to  lead  his  friend  into  error  by  some  allego- 
ry, or  to  elude  his  curiosity  by  an  obscure  fable ?  But  Manes  goes  on  to  say: 
De  eo  igitur,  frater  dilectiesime,  Patici,  de  quo  raihi  significasti,  diccns,  nosse  te 


318  Century  III— Section  45. 

cupere,  utrum  verbo  (by  command  of  God)  iidom  sunt  prolati,  an  primogeniti 
ex  corpore,  (i.  e.  begotten  of  the  Demon's  body,)  respondebitur  tibi  ut  congruit. 
Namque  de  his  a  plcrisque  in  variis  scripturis,  relationibiisque  dissimili  modo 
insertum  atque  commomoratum  est.  (Various  opinions  therefore,  relating  to 
[p.  804.]  the  origin  of  the  first  men,  were  afloat  in  the  East  in  various  books. 
Quapropter  Veritas  istius  rei  ut  sese  habet  ab  universis  fere  gentibus  ignoratur, 
et  ab  omnibus,  qui  etiam  de  hoc  diu  multumque  disputarunt.  (He  therefore 
proposes  to  give  a  new  opinion,  not  before  heard  of.)  Si  enim  illis  super  Adae 
ct  Eva)  generatione  provenisset  manifesto  cognoscere,  nunquam  eorruptioni  et 
morti  subjacerent.  The  salvation  of  men  and  eternal  life,  therefore,  depend  on 
a  correct  knowledge  of  the  origin  of  Adam  and  Eve  !  And  would  Manes  in- 
volve a  doctrine  of  such  moment  in  a  ludicrous  and  silly  fahle  7  But  there  are 
other  proofs,  which  intirely  overthrovi^  the  officious  opinion  of  Beausobre ; 
among  which  the  strongest  is,  that  according  to  Manes,  no  living  and  animated 
being  can  be  produced,  either  in  the  world  of  light  or  in  the  world  of  darkness, 
except  by  generation.  Yet  the  ingenious  man  has  one  argument  in  his  favor. 
He  observes,  that  no  one  except  Manes  only,  has  said  that  Adam  and  Eve  were 
the  fruits  of  the  Demon's  intercourse  with  his  wife.  This,  however,  is  not  per- 
fectly true ;  nor  if  it  were  true,  would  it  effect  anything.  For  Manes  alone, 
when  Ms  opinions  are  concerned,  is  of  higher  and  greater  authority  than  all 
others.  Besides,  the  others  do  not  speak  so  fully  and  distinctly  on  this  subject 
as  Manes  does,  they  aiming  to  express  summarily  what  he  had  expressed  more 
fully  and  minutely,  so  that  they,  as  we  shall  see,  treat  the  subject  more  concise- 
ly and  indistinctly.  Let  us  therefore  hear  Manes  himself;  and  let  us  not  hesi- 
tate to  take  his  statements  in  their  literal  sense.  I  will  cite  the  entire  passage 
from  Augustine,  (de  natura  boni  c.  46.  p.  366.  367.)  It  will  give  us  a  vivid  idea 
of  the  man's  singular  genius.  He  recites  what  the  Prince  of  darkness  said  to 
his  compeers,  thus  :  Iniquis  igitur  commentis  ad  eos,  qui  aderant,  ait :  Quid  vo- 
bis  videtur  maximum  hoc  lumen,  quod  oritur.^  (He  refers  to  the  Living  Spirit, 
who  came  down  from  heaven  to  renew  the  contest.)  Intuemini,  quemadmodura 
polura  raovet,  concutit  plurimas  potestates.  Quapropter  mihi  vos  potius  eequum 
est,  id  quod  in  vestris  viribus  habetis  luminis,  (namely,  the  light,  which  the  se- 
veral leaders  of  the  army  of  darkness  had  devoured  in  the  first  conflict.)  pra^ro- 
gare;  Sic  quippe  illius  magni,  qui  gloriosus  (i.  e.  lucid,)  apparuit,  imaginem 
fingam:  (The Greai  One  here,  whose  image  the  King  of  the  land  of  darkness 
would  copy,  is  not  the  Living  Spirit ;  for  he  was  merely  a  splendid  mass,  with- 
out any  form  :  it  was  therefore  the  First  Man,  after  whose  likeness  Adam  was 
formed,  according  to  iWanes;)  per  quam  regnare  poterimus,  tenebrarum  aliquan- 
do  conversatione  liberati.  Haec  audientes  (duces  et  proceres  terras  tenebrarum,) 
ac  diu  secum  deliberantes,  justissimum  putaverunt,  id,  quod  postulabantur,  pra- 
bere.  Nee  enim  fidebant,  se  idem  lumen  jugiter  retenturos:  unde  melius  rati 
sunt  Principi  suo  id  oflfevre,  nequaquam  desperantes,  eodem  se  pacto  regnaturos. 
Quo  igitur  modo  lumen  illud,  quod  habebant,  prsebuerint,  considerandum  est. 
[p.  805.]  Nam  hoc  etiam  divinis  scripturis,  arcanisque  coelestibus  adspersum 
est  ?  (That  is,  the  sacred  books  touch  indeed  upon  this  subject,  but  it  is  only 
briefly  and  summarily,)  sapientibus  vero,  (to  men  divinely  taught,  as  Manes  him- 


Formation   of  Man,  319 

self  pretended  to  be,)  quomodo  sit  dntiiin  scire,  miniinc  est  diflicilc:  nam  coram 
aperteque  cognoacitur  ab  eo,  qui  vere  ac  fideliter  intueri  voluerit.  Quoniara 
eorum,  qui  convenerant,  frequentia  promiseua  erat,  foeminarum  scilicit  ac  mas- 
culorum,  impulit  eoa,  ut  inter  se  coirent:  in  quo  coitu  alii  seminarunt,  alia^  frra- 
vida3  eftecta)  sunt.  Erant  autnm  partus  iis,  qui  genucrunt  similes,  vires  plurimas 
parentum,  uti  Priml  (ss.  Hofninis,)  obtinentes.  Ila^c  sumens  eoruni  I'rinceps 
uti  proicipuum  donum  gavisus  est.  Et  sicuti  etiam  nunc  fieri  videmus,  corpo- 
rum  formatriccm  naturam  mali  inde  vires  sumentem  figurare:  ita  cti;im  ante 
dictns  Princeps  sodulium  prolem  accipiens,  liabentcm  parentum  sensus,  pruden- 
tiam,  lucem,  (i.  e.  a  rational  soul,  which  is  a  particle  of  light,)  simul  secum  in 
generatione  proereatam,  comedit :  ac  plerisque  viribus  sumptis  ex  istiusmodi 
esc^,  in  qua  non  modo  inerat  fortitude,  sed  multo  magis  astutise  et  pravi,  sensus 
ex  fera  genitorum  gente,  propriam  ad  se  conjugem  evocavit,ex  ea,  qua  ipse  erat 
stirpe  manantem  :  et  facto  cum  ea  coitu,  seminavit,  ut  ceteri,  abundantiam  ma- 
lorum,  qua}  devoraverat:  nonnihil  etiam  ipse  adjiciens  ex  sua  cogitatione  et  vir- 
tute,  ut  esset  sensus  ejus  omnium  eorum,  qua)  profuderat  formator,  atque  des- 
criptor: ejus  compar  excipiebat  ha3c,  ut  semen  consuevit  culta  optime  terra 
percipere.  In  eadem  enim  construebantur  et  contexebantur  omnium  imagines, 
coelestiura  ac  terrenarum  virtutum,  ut  pleni  videlicet  orbis,  id  quod  fprmabatur 
similitudinem  obtineret.  Most  of  the  things  here  narrated  are  plain  and  very 
unlike  an  allegory.  Augustine  states  the  whole  matter  more  briefly,  (de  Ha3res. 
c.  42.  p.  13.)  thus:  Adam  et  Evam  ex  Prinipibus  fumi  asserunt  natos,  cum  Pa- 
ter eorum  nomine  Saclas  sociorum  suorum  fetus  omnium  devorasset,  et  quid- 
quid  inde  commixtum  divinee  subtantiae  ceperat,  cum  uxore  concumbens,  in 
earneprolis  tanquam  tenacissimo  vinculo  colligasset. — The  name  of  Saclas  here 
given  by  Augustine  to  the  Prince  of  evil,  as  it  is  also  by  Theodorei,  (H^eret.  Fa- 
bul.L.  i.  c.  26.  p.  213.)  and  by  others, — was  a  common  appellation  both  among 
the  Manichaians  and  the  Gnostics,  as  Epiphanius  informs  us,  (Haeres.  xxvi.  ^ 
10.  tom.  i.  p.  91.)  and  hence  it  is  manifest,  that  this  was  the  usual  name  for  the 
Demon  among  the  Orientals.  His  wife's  name,  as  preserved  by  Theodoret,  was 
Nebrod.  Of  the  origin  of  these  names,  I  offer  no  discussion.  For  what  cer- 
tainty or  utility  can  such  discussions  promise  us?  It  will  be  more  profitable 
to  elucidate  certain  parts  of  Manes'  statements,  and  confirm  them  by  other  tes- 
timonies, so  that  we  may  more  clearly  see  what  Manes  dreamed,  or,  if  vvu 
choose,  adopted  from  the  Mngian  system,  respecting  the  origin  of  mankind. 

In  the^rs^  place,  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the  first  men  by  the  Prince  of 
evil,  must  be  noticed.  In  the  beginning  of  the  passage  just  quoted,  [p.  80G.] 
Manes  clearly  shows,  that  Saclas  formed  the  purpose  of  producing  man,  when 
he  beheld  the  new  Luminary  from  heaven  appearing,  and  causing  his  princes  to 
tremble;  that  is,  when  he  saw  the  Living  Spirit  coming  to  succeed  tiie  First 
Man,  and  to  renew  the  war.  He  did  not  greatly  fear  the  First  Man,  who  was 
of  his  own  form,  and  operated  more  by  craftiness  and  deception,  than  by 
prowess:  but  on  seeing  this  new  General,  he  lost  all  confidence  in  his  own 
power  and  that  of  his  associates;  and,  from  the  first  movements  of  the  new  cap- 
tain, he  could  foresee,  that  he  and  his  companions  would  have  to  give  up  the 
light  which  they  had  captured.    To  prevent  the  loss  of  this  plunder,  he  deemed 


320  Century  Ill.—Section  45. 

it  necessary  to  collect  it  together,  and  to  place  it  in  safety;  and  this,  he  thought, 
could  not  be  belter  accomplished,  than  by  withdrawing  it  all  from  the  warriors, 
and,  after  getting  it  into  his  own  body,  to  commingle  it  perfectly  with  matter.  It 
may  therefore  be  assumed  as  certain,  that  the  first  human  beings  were  formed, 
at  the  very  commencement  of  the  second  war,  and  before  the  Living  Spirit  had 
obtained  the  victory ;  and  consequently,  they,  or  at  least  one  of  them,  Adam, 
existed  before  the  world  was  framed:  and  this  world  was  certainly  formed  by 
the  Living  Spirit,  after  the  subjugation  of  the  Prince  of  darkness.  This  is  a 
new  thought.  For  all  the  writers  on  the  subject,  whom  I  have  consulted,  say, 
that  according  to  Manes,  this  earth  of  ours  is  older  than  man;  and  that  man  waa 
generated  for  the  sake  of  the  earth.  And  for  the  support  of  their  opinion,  they 
have  the  respectable  testimony  of  Tijrho,  (in  the  Acta  Disput.  Archelai,  ^  7.  p.  12.) 
besides  others,  who  might  be  mentioned.  But  they  most  certainly  err,  if  reli- 
ance can  be  placed  on  Manes.  Man  was  prior  to  our  world;  and  the  previous 
generation  of  man  was,  undoubtedly,  the  cause  of  the  formation  of  our  world; 
and  God  would  not  have  given  orders  for  its  formation,  had  not  the  crafty  foe, 
by  generating  man,  frustrated  the  divine  plans,  by  shutting  up  the  souls  which 
God  wished  to  rescue,  in  a  body  as  their  prison.  In  confirmation  of  these  facts, 
several  passages  might  be  adduced  from  Titus  of  Bostra;  but  I  will  content  my- 
self with  citing  only  one,  from  a  Manichaean  who  wrote  a  book  Trip]  t«j  dv^pce- 
7riv>ig  vfiairo7r\ct<ri:tsy  de  prima  homip.is  formatione;  inserted  by  Titus  in  the  Pre- 
face to  his  third  Book,  (tom.  I.  p.  137.  edit.  Caiiisii^):  "Ekao-tos  durwv  twv  t/c 
i/A»j  dpyovTav  thj  yivouhm  )t/v«Vta'j  'iviKtv  kui  tow  fixvcvros  Trpwrov  htrX  tjiv  hurpcoTi^ 
T>if  '^V)(yiii  T«f  ^vp-xs  Trpwrov  dvoiyii^rn;,  vtt'  sitTrKi^iUii  Iik'jov  x.^rctTrcfx-^t^  tmv  iV 
dvru  S'vv^fJitv,  e/uopzaxriv  (ivtov  tii  Q-itpA/uct  t«j  -^^X^^  ""'  /nifAHfAct  irXAO-ii  l-xl  Tii; 
V«f,    cTf    S'v^ctTTO-^da-Teos   iivdyx.u.a-iv    raj    -^v^ai   KaraiciiKovMevas-      Kat   TTKa^y.^  dvToiv 

ia-Tt  TrpwTcv  o  'a/u^,  x.  t.  k.  Unusquisque  procerum  materia3,  siraulatque  mo- 
tus  factus  erat,  isque  apparebat,  qui  liberare  jussus  erat  animas,  simulatque 
janua  (eoelorum)  nperiebatur,  pra3  terrore  invitus  virtutem,  quae  in  eo  erat,  di- 
mittebat  et  forraavit  se  ipsum  ad  venandam  animam.  Et  imitationera  sui  finxit 
(This,  doubtless,  must  not  be  understood  of  all  the  princes  of  darkness,  but 
only  of  their  King;  whom  all  Manichseans,  as  well  as  the  founder  of  the  sect, 
[p.  807.]  represented  as  the  father  of  the  first  human  beings,)  in  terra,  (Beware 
of  hence  inferring,  that  our  earth  then  existed ;  for  this  waiter  had  previously 
denied  it  clearly,)  coegitque  animas  delinitas,  ut  in  eam  ingrederentur.  Ac  pri- 
mum  quidem  eorum  specimen  Adamus  est.  What  Manes  himself  had  stated 
clearly,  and  at  full  length,  his  disciple  here  states  more  briefly  and  indistinctly. 
Yet,  in  the  main  points,  he  agrees  fully  with  his  master.  For  he  manifestly 
teaches: — 1st,  That  great  terror  seized  the  princes  of  darkness,  when  they  saw 
the  gates  of  heaven  open,  and  the  Living  Spirit  issuing  forth  with  a  mighty 
movement.  The  cause  of  their  trouble  was,  the  fear  that  the  light  they  had 
plundered,  would  be  wrested  from  them,  and  that  they  should  fall  back  into 
their  former  wretchedness  and  misery.  For  thus  the  writer  had  before  stated: 
Quia  cognoverunt  magistratus  materia?,  quod  si  omnino  pars  luminis,  quod  in 
cos  incidit,  auferretur,  mors  (by  mors,  he  means  some  dire  calamity;  for  th» 
princes  of  darkness  could  not  die,)  eis  adventura  esset,  machinati  sunt  descen- 


Formation   of  Man.  321 

ttim  animje  in  corpora. — 2dly,  He  teaches,  tluit  God  purposed  to  rescue  the  oajv 
tured  light  or  souls,  by  means  of  the  Living  Spirit. — 3dly,  That  the  princes  of 
darkness,  to  frustrate  the  designs  of  God,  determined  on  the  formation  of  a  man, 
or  a  material  body,  and  inclosing-  the  captured  souls  in  it. — 4thl3%  That  lor  this 
purpose-,  they  gave  up  all  the  particles  of  light  which  they  had  seized,  reluc- 
taiitly,  indeed,  yet  prefering  this  as  the  least  of  two  evils. — 5thly,  And  hence  it 
way,  that  Adam  was  formed,  and  all  the  souls  thrust  into  him.  Therefore,  what 
we  have  stated  cannot  be  denied;  namely,  that  at  the  commencement  of  the  new 
campaign,  and  as  soon  as  the  Living  Spirit  made  his  appearance,  the  Prince  of 
evil  determined  to  generate  man;  so  that  truly,  man  was  born,  before  that  most 
powerful  Spirit  founded  this  terraqueous  globe. 

The  second  thing  demanding  attention  in  the  passage  cited  from  Manes,  is, 
the  objects  proposed  by  the  Prince  of  darkness  in  the  formation  of  man.  The 
first  or  immediate  object,  had  reference  to  the  light.  For  the  Lord  of  evil 
wished  to  retain  dominion  over  that  light  which  he  and  his  associates  had  seized, 
and  to  prevent  its  recovery  by  the  Living  Spirit.  The  other,  or  more  remote 
object,  is  not  so  manifest.  Manes  thus  describes  it:  Fingam  imaginem,  per 
quam  regnare  poterimus,  conversatione  tenebrarum  liberati.  He  therefore  pro- 
mised himself  and  friends  a  kingdom,  as  the  result  of  the  formation  of  man  :  and 
his  captains  and  co-warriors  relied  upon  this  promise.  A  little  retiection  will 
make  this  expectation  intelligible.  The  King  of  darkness  anticipated,  that 
Adam,  when  he  should  generate  him,  would  propagate  his  species  by  means  of 
Eve  ;  and  thus  all  the  souls  collected  together  in  him,  would  gradually  become 
distributed  into  as  many  bodies.  And  he  had  no  doubt,  that  these  souls,  when 
intangled  in  bodies,  would  follow  their  senses  and  their  pleasures,  rather  than 
their  reason :  and  all  who  yield  to  lust  and  to  the  instincts  of  depraved  matter, 
are  under  the  power  and  dominion  of  the  Prince  of  evil.  In  this  ex-  [p.  808.] 
pectation,  the  Lord  of  evil  w-as  not  disappointed.  He  therefore  actually  pre- 
pared for  himself  a  kingdom,  when  he  generated  the  first  man. 

The  third  thing  requiring  illustration  in  the  passage  from  Manes,  is  as  fol- 
lows :  The  King  of  darkness  says,  that  he  imaginem  Magni  illius,  qui  gloriosus 
apparnif,  ficturum  esse  ;  that  is,  that  he  w'ould  form  a  man,  like  to  the  First 
Man.  So  Manes  and  all  his  sect  believed,  that  Adam  was  a  copy  of  that  First 
Man  whom  God  sent  against  the  army  of  darkness.  Tyrho,  (in  the  Acta  Archelai^ 
5  7.  p.  12.)  says  :  Convocavit  (Princeps  malorum)  omnes  prineipes  primaries,  et 
Hurapsit  ab  eis  singulas  virtutes,  et  fecit  hominem  hunc  secundum  spcciem 
Primi  Hominis  illius,  et  junxit  animam  (i.  e.  all  the  souls)  in  eo.  It  is  well 
known,  and  yet  is  worth  repeating,  that  Adam  also  bore  the  image  of  his  father, 
the  Prince  of  darkness.  Thus  Tyrho,  (I.  c.  p.  19.)  :  De  Adam  vero  quomodo 
creatus  sit,  ita  dicit  (Manes),  quia  qui  dicit :  Veni(e,faciamus  hominem  ad  imagi- 
nem et  similitudinem  nostram,  secundum  eam,  quam  videmus,  formam  Princeps 
est,  qui  hoc  dicit  ad  collegas  sues  prineipes,  id  est,  venite,  date  mihi  de  lumine, 
quod  accepimus,  et  faciamus  secundum  nostram,  qui  prineipes  fiumuH,  for marnet 
secundum  earn,  quam  videmus,  quod  est  Primus  Homo,  et  ita  hominem  creave- 
runt.  Adam  therefore,  in  one  sense,  resembled  the  First  Man,  but  in  another 
•ense  he  resembled  his  father,  the  King  of  evil.  As  to  his  external  forrn,  he 
VOL.  n.  22 


S22  Century  Ill.—Seciion  45. 

was  like  his  father ;  for  we  have  before  showed,  that  the  Lord  of  darkness  was 
a  giant  in  a  human  form.  In  his  figure,  therefore,  we  must  not  seek  for  the 
resembhince  of  Adnm  to  the  First  Man.  That  he  was  equal  to  his  father  in 
stature  and  magnitude,  and  much  taller  and  larger  than  his  posterity,  cannot 
he  doubted.  The  likeness  of  Adam  to  the  First  Man,  I  therefore  suppose,  was 
placed  by  Manes  in  his  attributes  of  light  and  power.  For,  as  his  father  had 
imparted'  to  him  all  the  souls,  those  particles  of  light,  he  could  not  fail  of  being 
resplendent,  and  possessed  of  great  power  and  strength  ;  just  as  the  First  Man 
was.  Most  of  the  Orientals,  and  many  of  the  Jews  likewise,  were  persuaded 
that  Adam  was  a  giant,  and  was  clothed  with  a  very  luminous  body.  This 
Oriental  opinion.  Manes  doubtless  embraced,  and  incorporated  in  his  religion. 
Lastly,  passing  over  things  so  plain  as  not  to  need  a  comment,  there  remains 
to  be  noticed,  the  opinion  expressed  by  Manes  in  the  passage,  concerning  the 
origin  and  nature  of  the  soul.  The  Prince  of  darkness  committed  the  whole 
mass  of  souls  under  his  control,  to  the  vast  and  gigantic  body  of  his  single  son 
Adam.  And  therefore,  whatever  exists  anywhere  on  our  globe,  having  tiie  na- 
ture of  soul,  proceeded  wholly  from  Adam  by  natural  generation,  and  has  thus 
reached  his  posterity.  Notwithstanding  souls  had  existed  in  the  world  of  light 
long  before  bodies  were  formed,  yet  souls  were  not  thrust  into  bodies  by  God 
on  account  of  their  sins,  as  Plato  thought;  nor  did  they,  as  others  supposed, 
[p.  809.]  voluntarily  enter  into  bodies,  from  a  love  of  voluptuous  indulgence ; 
but  involuntarily,  and  contrary  to  the  pleasure  of  God,  they  were  intangled  in 
the  bonds  of  material  bodies,  by  the  Lord  of  darkness  ;  and  they  are  propagated 
from  parents  to  their  children,  by  a  law  of  nature,  in  the  same  manner  as  bodies 
are.  This  I  could  confirm  abundantly,  from  Augustine  and  others,  if  it  were 
necessary.  But  I  only  refer  to  the  testimony  of  Manes  himself,  which  is  here- 
after to  be  cited. — His  opinion  respecting  souls,  obliged  our  Persian  to  profess 
what  is  called  the  Metempsychosis,  or  the  migration  of  souls  througli  different 
bodies.  For  he  supposed,  only  a  limited  and  definite  number  of  souls  were 
thrust  into  material  bodies ;  and  they  who  think  so,  must  suppose  that  when 
souls  go  out  of  their  bodies,  they  pass  into  new  ones. 

Respecting  the  generation  of  Eve,  nothing  has  reached  us  in  the  writings  of 
Manes.  But  Tyrho,  (in  the  Acta  ArcJielai,  pO.  p.  20.)  repeats  as  his,  the  following 
words :  Evam  quoque  similiter  fecerunt,  dantes  ei  de  concupiscientia  sua  ad  deeipi- 
endum  Adam.  From  this  declaration  it  is  manifest,  that  Eie  was  of  a  worse 
character,  and  had  more  depraved  matter  in  her  composition,  than  her  husband. 
For  in  Adam,  into  whom  his  father  had  infused  the  gi'eatest  part  of  the  light, 
there  was,  as  we  shall  soon  show,  more  of  light  and  goodness  than  of  darkness 
and  evil  matter :  but  in  Eve  there  was  a  less  quantity  of  light,  and  a  far  greater 
quantity  of  darkness  or  propension  to  pleasures.  This  Tyrbo  indicates,  by  the 
words :  Dantes  ei  de  concupiscentia  sua.  And  such  a  character  was  necessary 
to  her ;  as  it  was  by  her,  that  the  cause  and  author  of  all  evil,  wished  his  son 
to  be  induced  to  apostatize  from  right  reason.  Theodorel  tells  us,  (Ha3ret. 
Fabul.  L.  i.  c.  26.  p.  213.)  that  Eve  had  no  rational  soul,  when  she  was  born  ; 
but  that  a  certain  male  virgin,  named  Joel  and  Daughter  of  Light,  afterwards 
imbued  her  with  light  or  a  rational  soul.     And  it  may  be,  that  Manes  so  taught. 


Formation  of  Man.  323 

For,  as  the  Prince  of  evil  had  exhausted  the  whole  mass  of  liglit  in  gencratinrr 
Adam,  he  could  impart  nothing-  to  Eve,  except  a  sentient  soul.  But  this  part 
of  the  fable,  from  the  want  of  documents  to  elucidate  it,  must  be  left  very  much 
in  the  dark.  Yet  the  longer  I  ponder  and  consider  the  fable  of  Manes,  the 
more  certain  I  become,  that  Eve  was  born  long  after  Adam,  and  after  our  world 
was  established.  And  I  hope  those  will  agree  with  me,  in  this  point,  who  may 
peruse  what  I  am  about  to  say  respecting  Manes'  views  of  Adam's  sin. 

(2)  What   all  Christians  believe,  on  the  authority  of  the  inspired  writer 
Moses,  that  Adam  apostatized  from  God,  and  was  enticed  into  sin  by  the  Prince 
of  hell, — M«7ies  also  confessed;  yet  he  explained  the  matter  very  differently 
from  other  Christians.     What  the  ancients  state,  and  among  them  Augustine 
who  had  read  Manichrean  books,  respecting  the  opinions  of  Manes  in  regard  to 
the  sin  of  the  first  man,  are  so  various  and  so  discordant,  tliat  the  most  ingeni- 
ous cannot  reconcile  them.  Some  of  them  listened  too  much  to  rumors,  others 
confounded  certain  Gnostic  notions  with  the  opinions  of  Manes,  and  [p.  810.] 
others  appear  to  have  misrepresented  the  truth,  from  their  hatred  of  the  sect. 
Therefore  laying  aside  and  disregarding  the  dubious,  the  uncertain,  the  false 
and  the  contradictory,  I  will   first  bring  forward  the  testimonies  which  have 
most  authority;  and  then  from  these  will  endeavor,  as  far  as  possible,  to  elicit 
the  true  sentiments  of  Manes  and  arrange  them  methodically.     Three  passages 
embrace  the  whole  subject.     The  first  is  from  Tyrho,  (in  the  Acta  Disput.  Ar- 
clielai,  \  10.  p.  17.)  who  tells  us,  that  Manes  converted  the  Mosaic  account  of 
Adam's  transgression  into  an  allegory  :  Paradisus  autem,  qui  vocatur  mundus, 
et  arbores,  quae  in  ipso  sunt,  concupiscentiae  sunt :  (An  incorrect  statement,  as 
appears  from  what  is  said  afterwards :)  et  ceterae  seductiones  corrumpentes  cogi- 
tationes  hominum.     Concupiscencies,  then,  are  not  inordinate  emotions  of  the 
human  mind  or  will,  but  real  things,  which  stir  up  and  excite  those  emotions  or 
lusts  of  th.e  man.     Tyrho  adds  :  Arborem  scientiae  boni  et  mali  esse  ipsum  Je- 
sura,  quo  duce  ac  magistro  homines  bonum  malo  secernere  discunt.     This  ma- 
nifestly contradicts  what  he  had  before  said.    For,  if  the  trees  of  Paradise  were 
sensible  objects,  which  the  man  craved  and  desired,  how  could  the  tree  of  know- 
ledge of  good  and  evil  be  Jesus  ?    I  suppose.  Manes  likened  Jesus  to  that  tree, 
and  that  Tyrho  converted  the  metaphor  into  a  dogma. — The  second,  a  very  ne- 
ticeable  passage,  is  from  Manes  himself,  (Epistola  ad  filiam  Menocli,  which  is 
preserved  in  the  unfinished  work  of  Augustine,  contra  Julianum  Pelagianum, 
L.  iii.  0pp.  torn.  x.  p.  832.)  :  Operae  pretium  est  advertere,  quia  prima  anima, 
quae  a  Deo  luminis  manavit,  accepit  fabricam  istam  corporis,  ut  earn  fraeno  sue 
regeret.     Venit  mandatum.  peccatum  revixit,  quod  videbatur  captivum :  invenit 
articulos  suos  Diabolus  (i,  e.  an  occasion,  suited  to  his  purpose,)  materiam  con- 
cupiscentiae in  eam  seduxit  et  per  illam  occidit.  Lex  quidem  sancta,8ed  sancta  sanc- 
tae,  et  mandatum  et  justum  et  bonum,  sed  justae  et  bonae.  I  will  here  subjoin  an 
extract  from  Augusfme^s rep]y  to  Julian,  which  affords  light  on  this  subject.  Augus- 
tine,  aiming  to  convict  Julian  of  coinciding-  with  Manes,  by  means  of  this  Epistle, 
says  :  Manichaeus  non  hocde  homine,  sed  de  animfi  bona  dicit,  quam  Dei  j)artom 
atque  naturam — opinatur  -  -  in  homine  perconcupiscentiamdecipi.  Quam  concu- 
'•iscentiam  non  vitium  substantiae  bonae,  sed  malam  vult  esse  substantiam.  Mala 


324  Century  III.— Section  45. 

non  vacuum  fuisse  dicit  Adam,  sed  ejus  minus  lidbuisse,  muUoque  plus  lucis.  The 
third  p.'issage  is  from  Augustine,  (de  morlbus  ecclesiae  Catholicae  etManichae- 
orum,  L.  ii. c  19.  0pp.  torn.  i.  p.  552.)  :  Talis  apud  vos  opinio  de  Adam  et  Eva: 
lono;i  fabula  est,  scd  ex  ea  id  attiiiijam,  quod  in  praesentia  satis  est.  Adam  dici- 
tis,  sica  parentibus  suis  (rcniturn,  abortivis  illis  piincipibus  tenebrarum,ut  maxi- 
mam  parLem  lucis  haberet  in  anima  et  perexiguam  gentis  adversae.  Qui  cum 
s;tiu'te  viveret  propter  exsuperantem  copiam  boni,  commotam  tamen  in  eo  fuisse 
[p.  811.]  adversam  illam  partem,  ut  ad  concubitura  declinaretur :  ita  eum  lapsura 
esse  atque  peccasse,  sed  vixisse  postea  sanctiorem.  A  Manichaean,  whom  August- 
ine  had  previously  mentioned  for  exemplification,  when  he  was  severely  bastina- 
doed for  deflowering  a  virgin,  relying  upon  this  doctrine,  clamabat,  ut  sibi  ex 
auctoritate  Maniehaei  parceretur,  Adam  primum  heroem  (so  all  the  copies  read  ; 
but  I  think  it  should  read  hominem.  For  in  what  sense  could  Adam,  the  son  of 
the  evil  Demon,  be  called  a  liero  by  the  Manichaeans  ?)  peccavisse,  et  post  pec- 
catum  fuisse  sanctiorem. — Whoever  will  carefully  consider  the  things  above 
stated  in  these  passages,  some  of  them  clearly  and  others  obscurely,  and  will 
compare  with  them  what  has  been  already  proved,  and  particularly  what  we 
have  said  respecting  Eie,  the  mother  of  the  human  race;  unless  I  greatly  mis- 
judge, will  be  able  to  form  no  other  conception  of  Manes''  opinion  in  regard  to 
the  sin  of  the  first  man,  than  as  follows: — First,  When  the  Prince  of  evil  had 
placed  in  safety  those  souls  or  particles  of  divine  light,  which  the  Living  Spirit 
had  been  commissioned  by  God  to  recover,  and  they  w^ere  now  all  enclosed  in 
the  single  body  of  Adam,  the  offspring  of  the  Prince  of  darkness;  the  first  care 
of  God  was,  to  prevent  Adam  from  neglecting,  and  dissipating  by  carnal  copu- 
lation, that  immense  treasure  of  light  which  w^as  stored  up  in  him. — Secondly, 
He  therefore  placed  him  in  some  part  of  that  world,  which  the  Living  Spirit 
had  been  instructed  to  fabricate  ;  and  commanded  him  to  watch  carefully,  lest 
what  was  of  a  divine  nature  in  him  should  be  overcome  by  the  assaults  of  the 
body  and  of  the  evil  soul  or  concupiscence.  The  tact  that  God  gave  a  law  to 
Adam,  is  most  clearly  stated  by  Manes ;  who  says,  that  the  substance  of  the 
law  was :  Vt  Adamus,  freno  animcc  divincc,  corpus  (naturally  inclined  to  lust) 
regeret.  I  therefore  wonder  that  Faustus,  a  disciple  of  Manes,  (apud  August. 
h.  xxii.  c.  4.  p.  258.)  should  censure  the  Mosaic  history  of  the  first  human  be- 
ings, because,  (as  he  says)  :  Deus  in  ea  fingatur  ignarus  futurl,  ut  prseceptum  il- 
lud,  quod  non  esset  servaturus  Adam,  ei  mandaret.  When  uttering  this  he 
must  have  forgotten  the  written  statements  of  Manes.  It  is  certain,  as  we  have 
before  put  beyond  controversy,  that  the  God  of  the  Manichaeans  was  ignoranl 
of  the  future ;  and  he  did  give  a  law  to  Adam,  which  he  was  not  to  keep. — 
Thirdly,  Adam  could,  with  a  little  pains,  have  kept  the  law  which  God  gave 
him.  For  although  the  collection  of  souls  or  the  mass  of  light,  which  his  Ei- 
ther had  committed  to  him,  was  resident  in  a  malignant  body,  and  also  con- 
nected with  a  turbulent  and  vicious  soul;  yet  the  portion  of  the  divine  nature 
which  he  possessed  was  far  greater  and  more  abundant,  than  the  portion  of  de- 
praved matter  with  which  it  was  surrounded.  Nor  is  this  unaccountable  :  for 
the  whole  mass  of  light,  which  the  entire  race  of  darkness  had  seized  upon,  was 
collected  and  deposited  in  hun :  so  that  he  had  only  one  evil  and  vicious  soul, 


Formation  of  Man.  305 

but  good  ones  innumeralilo. — Fourthhj,  Therefore,  Adam,  for  some  time,  being 
mindful  of  tiie  divine  i:uv,  lived  a  holy  life,  and  curbed  the  emotions  of  desire, 
by  sound  reason. — F'ljVdy,  But  this  continence  portended  great  danger  to  the 
wishes  of  the  Prince  of  evil.  For  if  Adam  should  persevere  in  it,  the  [p.  812,] 
whole  band  of  souls  latent  in  him,  on  the  extinction  of  his  body,  would  soar 
aloft  to  the  world  of  light,  and  deprive  the  Demon  of  all  hope  of  founding  for 
himself  a  kingdom. — Sixlhltj  The  Prince  of  darkness  perceiving  this,  generated 
a  most  beautiful  woman,  who  was  to  allure  Adam  to  sin,  or  to  enkindle  in  him 
that  desire  which  was  kept  in  subjection  by  the  divine  souls.  She  at  first  had 
only  a  sentient  and  vicious  soul,  because  her  father  had  previously  divested 
himself  of  all  ligiit.  But  God,  wishing  to  make  her  better,  and  to  prevent 
Adam's  siiming,  added  to  her  sentient  soul  a  divine  and  good  soul,  by  means 
of  a  celestial  Being  named  the  Daughter  of  Light.  But  this  good  soul  was  too 
weak,  to  subdue  and  hold  in  subjection  that  mass  of  depraved  matter,  of  which 
Eve  was  composed. — Seventhly,  The  result  therefore  was  as  tlw?  Prince  of  evil 
wished.  For  Eve,  in  whom  desire  was  more  powerful  than  reason,  kindled  aflame 
in  Adam.  And,  overcome  by  her  blandishments,  he  yielded  to  her  solicitations, 
and  lay  with  her.  And  thus  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  the  fruit  of 
which  ruined  man,  was  Eve :  and  the  sin  of  Adam  was,  intercouse  with  the  wife 
provided  for  him  by  the  Prince  of  evil, 

(3)  What  Manes  thought  of  man,  cannot  be  unintelligible  to  those  who 
have  read  with  moderate  care  the  preceding  discussions.  And  yet  this  subject 
demands  some  attention,  especially  in  regard  to  the  soul.  Manes  constituted 
man  with  two  souls,  the  one  good  and  the  other  evil,  and  a  body  altogether  evil. 
And  not  only  was  the  body  prop:igated  from  the  parents,  but  likewise  both 
souls,  though  in  a  difterent  manner.  For  the  body  is  begotten  by  a  body,  and 
the  soul  by  or  from  a  soul.  Manes  will  explain  this  shortly, — To  begin  with 
the  body;  It  is  clear,  that  the  body  consists  wholly  of  depraved  and  vicious 
matter.  For  when  all  the  celestial  matter,  now  mi.xed  with  the  depraved  mat- 
ter, shall  have  escaped  and  evaporated,  the  impure  residuum  and  malignant 
dregs  constitute  the  human  body.  Augustine  is  eloquent  in  explaining  this  doc- 
trine, (de  moribus  Manicha3ornm,  L,  ii.  c.  15.  0pp.  torn,  i,  p,  543,):  Carnes  jam 
de  ip.sis  sordibus  dicitis  esse  concretas.  Fugit  enim  aliquid  partis  illius  divina^ 
ut  perhibetis,  dum  fruges  et  poma  carpuntur;  fugit,  cum  aflhguntur  vel  tcrendo, 
vel  molendo,  vel  coquendo,  vel  etiam  raordendo  atque  mandendo.  Fugit  etiam 
in  omnibus  motibus  animalium  vel  cum  gestiunt,  vel  cum  exercentur,  vel  cum 
laborant.  -  -  Fugit  etiam  in  ipsa  quiete  nostra  dum  in  corpore  ilia,  qua?  appel- 
latur  digestio,  interiore  calore  conficitur.  Atque  ita  tot  occasionibus  fugiente 
divina  natura,  quiddam  sordidissimum  remanet,  unde  per  concubitum  caro  for- 
mctur.  -  -  Quo  circa  cum  anima  etiam  carnem  deseruerit,  nimias  sordes  reli- 
quas  fieri.  Hence  all  bodies  belong,  not  to  God,  but  to  his  adversary,  the 
Prince  of  darkness;  who  forms  and  fabricates  them  by  means  of  lust,  which 
comes  from  him.  In  his  Epistle  to  Menoch,  (in  Augustine's  unfinished  work 
against  Julian,  L.  iii,  0pp.  tom.  x.  p.  828.)  Manes  says:  Sicut  auctor  [p.  813,] 
animarum  Deus  est,  ita  corporum  auctor  per  concupiscentiam  (which  passed 
from  him  into  the  evil  soul,)  Diabolus  est,  ut  in  viscatorio  Diaboli  per  concupis- 


326  Century  III. — Section  45. 

centiam  mulieris.  (Here  seems  to  be  something  wrong  in  tlie  language,  but  the 
sense  is  clear.  Manes  (I  suppose)  would  say,  that  women  now,  as  formerly 
Eve,  is  the  bird-lime  of  the  Prince  of  evil,  by  which  he  enkindles  lust  in  rnen, 
and  entraps  them.)  Unde  Diabolus  aucupatur  non  animas,  sed  c-orpora  sive 
per  visum,  sive  per  tactum,  sive  per  auditum,  sive  per  odoratum,  sive  per  gus- 
tum.  (Good  souls,  being  of  a  celestial  nature,  and  free  from  all  emotions  and 
desires,  cannot  possibly  be  ensnared,  or  have  lustful  feelings  excited  in  tlK-m. 
But  bodies,  in  which  evil  and  concupiscent  souls  reside,  can  be  insnared  or 
stimulated  to  sin,  by  means  of  the  five  bodily  senses.)  ToUe  denique  malignae 
hujus  stirpis  radicem,  et  statim  te  ipsam  spiritalem  contemplaris. 

That  Manes  assigned  two  souls  to  men,  is  most  certain.  See  Augustine's 
unfinished  work  against  Julian,  (L.  iii.  p.  82S.)  :  Duas  simul  animns  in  uno  horai- 
ne  esse  delirant,  unam  malam,  alteram  bonara,  de  snis  diversis  Prineipiis  eman- 
antes.  And  there  is  extant  a  Tract  of  Avguslme,  (0pp.  tom.  viii.  p.  55  &c.)  in- 
titled:  Libellus  de  duabus  animabus  contra  Manicha30s.  But  whoever  shall  ex- 
pect to  gain  from  it  a  full  and  accurate  knowledge  of  the  Manichaean  doctrine, 
concerning  the  soul,  will  find  his  expectations  disappointed  in  the  perusal.  For 
the  author  disputes  against  the  doctrine  in  a  general  way,  and  without  defining 
and  explaining  it.  Indeed,  Augustine  confesses,  though  obscurely,  in  his  un- 
finished work,  (L.  iii.  p.  828.)  that  he  did  not  fully  and  intirely  understand  the 
doctrine  of  his  antagonist  concerning  the  soul.  I  can  believe,  that  both  Manes 
and  his  disciples  expressed  themselves  differently  at  different  times,  on  this  as 
on  many  other  subjects.  I  will  state  what  can  be  ascertained  in  regard  to  it. — 
The  evil  soul  comes  from  the  Prince  of  evil,  and  is  the  seat  of  all  the  passions, 
lust.-*,  appetites,  and  desires,  by  which  men  are  agitated  and  led  astray ;  but  the 
good  soul  is  a  daughter  of  light,  and  of  a  divine  nature,  and  cannot  become  ex- 
cited, nor  crave  any  of  the  external  objects  thnt  meet  the  senses.  This  depraved 
soul  is  attached  to  the  body,  and  is  excited  and  impelled  to  concupiscence,  by 
the  objects  presented  to  the  five  senses.  This,  I  think,  is  clear,  from  the  passage 
of  Manes  before  cited,  in  which  he  says :  Diabolus  aucupatur  non  animas  (i.  e. 
not  the  good  souls,)  sed  corpora,  (in  which  the  vicious  soul  resides,)  by  means 
of  the  five  senses.  This  soul  is  propagated,  with  the  body,  from  the  parent  to 
the  child.  Says  Manes,  in  his  Epistle  to  Menoch,  (apud  August.  Operis  imperf. 
L.  iii.  p.  829.) :  Caro  (i.  e.  the  body,  in  which  resides  the  soul  that  is  evil  by 
nature,)  adversatur  spiritui,  quia  filia  concupiscentia3  est,  et  spiritus  oarni,  quia 
filius  animse  est.  Quare  vide,  quam  stulti  sint,  qui  dicunt,  hoc  figmentum  (the 
animated  body)  a  Deo  bono  esse  conditum,  quod  certi  sunt  a  spiritu  concupis- 
[p.  814.]  centiae  gigni.  Parents  obtain  those  souls,  which  they  impart  to  their 
children,  through  the  aliments  they  use.  For  all  matter,  and  all  the  five  ele- 
ments of  it,  the  Manichaeans  supposed  to  be  animated  or  full  of  souls;  and  this 
they  supposed,  not  only  of  bad  matter,  but  also  of  good  matter.  Therefore, 
whenever  people  nourish  their  bodies  with  flesh,  wine,  and  other  nutritious  sub- 
stances, they  take  therewith  into  their  bodies,  the  turbulent  and  vicious  soul 
latent  in  those  substances.  And  consequently,  it  must  be,  that  the  children  pro- 
created from  their  bodies,  receive  also  that  root  of  all  evils. — If  now  it  be  asked, 
to  which  of  the  five  elements,  of  which  all  things  are  composed,  the  evil  soul 


Formation    of  Man.  307 

bclon^d? — (for  the  Maiiieha3ans  recognized  no  Beings  as  simple  essences,  and 
void  of  matter,)  I  suppose,  it  was  a  portion  of  smoke^  or  the  bad  ether.  For  the 
I'rint'c  of  darkness  lives  and  dwells  in  smoke,  or  in  the  thick  murkey  ether;  and 
he  consists  of  smoke  or  m;ilignant  ether,  just  as  God  does  of  light.  And  as  evil 
souls  are  descended  from  him,  it  is  to  be  supposed,  tiiat  they  will  possess  the 
same  nature  with  their  parent.  Therefore,  the  depraved  soul  of  the  IManiohic- 
ans,  was  a  portion  of  smoke  or  bad  ether,  which  is  dilTuscd  through  all  matter, 
and  from  it  is  transfused  into  all  human  bodies. 

Its  opposite,  the  good  soul,  is  a  particle  of  celestial  light.  Of  this,  there 
can  be  no  doubt.  But  whether  it  is  a  portion  of  that  divine  nature  or  light,  of 
which  God  himself  consists,  or  whether  it  belongs  to  that  celestial  element, 
which  the  ]\[anicha3ans  denominated  light,  is  not  equally  certain.  The  ancient 
adversaries  of  the  Manichaaans,  Tilus,  Augustine,  and  the  others,  afiirm  in  many 
places,  that  the  good  soul  of  the  Manichagans  was  a  part  of  God  himself  Read 
merely  the  Tract  of  Augustine  de  duabus  animabus,  in  the  beginning  of  which, 
he  several  times  declares  the  good  soul  of  the  Manichseans  to  be  de  suhstantUl 
Dei.  But  Beausohre  takes  great  pains  to  prove,  that  the  ancients  erred  in  this 
matter,  and  that  the  good  soul  is  only  a  portion  of  the  celestial  elements.  To 
me  the  point  appears  doubtful :  because  the  doctrine  of  the  Manichfeans  respeot- 
ing  the  soul  is  nowhere  explained  with  sufficient  clearness.  Manes,  in  a  passage 
80on  to  be  adduced,  calls  the  soul  divincc  stirpis  fructum :  but  this  is  ambigu- 
ous, and  may  be  understood  either  way.  The  good  soul  is  propagated :  but  in 
what  manner.  Manes  himself  seems  not  to  know ;  and,  if  I  mistake  not,  he  is 
not  self-consistent  in  regard  to  the  soul.  But  let  us  hear  him  descanting  on 
the  subject,  in  his  Epistle  to  his  daughter  Menoch,  (apud  August.  Operis  imperf. 
L.  iii.  p.  828.)  where  he  thus  addresses  the  lady :  Gratia  tibi,  et  salus  a  Deo 
nostro,  qui  est  revera  verus  Deus,  tribuatur,  ipscque  tuam  mentem  illustret  et 
justitiam  suam  tibimet  revelet,  quia  es  diviucC  stirpis  fructus.  -  -  -  Per  quos  et 
tu  splcndida  reddita  es,  agnoscendo  qualiter  prius  fueris,  ex  quo  genere  anima- 
rum  emanaveris,  quod  est  confusum  omnibus  corporibus  et  saporibus  [p.  815.] 
et  speciebus  variis  cohasret.  Nam  sicut  animcc  gignuntur  animabus,  ita  figmen- 
tum  corporis  a  corporis  natura  digeritur.  Quod  ergo  nascitur  de  came,  caro 
est,  et  quod  de  spiritu,  spiritus  est :  spiritum  autem  animam  intellige,  anima  de 
anima,  caro  de  carne.  -  -  Caro  enim  adversatur  spiritui,  quia  filia  concu])iscentia3 
est:  et  spiritus  carni,  quia  filius  animaj  est.  Manes  here  seems  explicitly  to 
support  the  opinion  of  those  who  make  souls  originate  from  souls.  And  hence 
Julian  the  Pelagian,  who  wished  to  prove  Augustine  to  be  a  Manichasan  in  his 
doctrine  of  the  soul,  says :  Cognoscis  nempe,  quomodo  signatissime  Manichajus 
traducem  confirmet  animarum,  et  quo  testimonio  utatur  ad  vituperationem  car- 
nis,  illo  videlicet,  quod  in  ore  vestro  versatur,  id  est.  Quod  nascitur  de  carne, 
caro  est,  et  quod  de  spiritu,  f^piritus  est.  Augustine  here  hesitates,  and  knows 
not  what  reply  to  make.  He  first  says  :  Nescire  se  hanc  epistolam  ^Maniciuei. 
This  perhaps  was  true  ;  but  it  was  nothing  to  the  purpose.  lie  then  adds, 
That  if  Manes  wrote  so,  he  contradicted  himself:  Si  hoc  dixit  Manicha^us,  quid 
mirum  est,  quod  se  ipse  destruxit  ?  This  is  no  mistake  :  for  the  opinion,  which 
Manes  here  seems  to  profess,  in  regard  to  the  propagation  of  souls,  evidently 


328  Century  JIL— Section  45. 

disagrees  with  his  other  opinions  respecting  the  generation  of  man,  the  world, 
and  other  subjects.  Finally,  he  says  he  does  not  know  the  opinion  of  Manes 
respectir)g  the  soul ;  and  he  is  not  disposed  to  inquire  into  it :  Quomodo  dicat 
Manichaeus  aninias  nasci,  ad  nos  quid  pertinet  ?  But  I  wonder,  the  acute  Aw- 
gusiine  should  not  perceive,  that  the  very  words  of  Manes  before  us,  contain 
enough  to  overthrow  this  opinion  of  the  generation  of  souls  by  souls.  For 
Manes  says  to  his  daughter,  whom  he  is  addressing :  Animani  emanasse  de  illo 
animarum  genere,  quod  est  confusum  omnibus  corporibus  et  saporibus  et  spe- 
ciebus  variis  cohaeret.  If  Manes  said  this  in  reference  to  the  good  soul  of  his 
daughter,  then  that  soul  was  not  born  of  the  soul  of  her  parents ;  but  it  came 
into  their  bodies  with  their  food  and  drink,  and  thence  passed  into  their  daughter. 
That  Manes  had  reference  to  the  evil  soul,  I  see  no  reason  at  all  to  beiieve. 
And  hence,  either  the  doctrine  of  Manes  concerning  the  soul,  was  incoherent 
and  a  compound  of  contradictions, — which  perhaps  was  the  fact;  or  we  must 
suppose,  that  when  he  said.  Souls  are  the  daughters  of  sovls,  he  only  meant, 
that  all  good  souls  descended  from  that  mass  of  light  or  souls,  which  the  Prince 
of  darkness  had  got  into  his  power.  Yet  no  small  portion  of  those  souls  re- 
sides in  herbs  and  trees  and  animals ;  because  the  souls  of  men  which  are  not 
purgated,  migrate  at  death  into  various  kinds  of  bodies,  from  which  in  process 
of  time  they  return  into  men.  And  thus  Augustine  himself  explains  the  Mani- 
chrean  doctrine,  in  another  place,  (contra  duas  Epistolas  Pelagianorum,  L,  iv.  c. 
[p.816.]  4,  Opp.  tom.  X.  p.  310.)  :  Dicunt  Manichsei  animan  bonam,  partem  scilicet 
Dei,  pro  mentis  inquinationis  suae  per  cibum  et  potura,  in  qiiibus  antea  colligata 
est,  venire  in  hominem  atque  ita  per  concubitum  carnis  vinculo  colligari. — Let 
us  proceed  to  other  points.  This  good  soul,  being  of  celestial  origin,  and  nothing 
celestial  being  able  to  put  oif  or  change  its  nature,  must  be  holy  and  just  and 
good,  and  it  cannot  lose  its  holiness  even  in  the  body.  It  may  indeed  become 
debilitated,  or  its  natural  energy  and  power  may  be  impeded,  by  the  body  to 
which  it  is  joined,  and  by  the  evil  soul  its  associate ;  but  it  is  absolutely  im- 
possible for  it  to  become  corrupted  or  vitiated,  or  to  harbor  lusts  and  passions. 
Whatever  enormities  and  crimes,  therefore,  are  committed  by  men,  they  all  per- 
tain to  the  evil  soul  and  the  body ;  and  when  they  are  committed,  the  good  soul 
dissents,  is  unwilling,  and  reluctating.  Says  Augustine,  (Operis  imperf  L.  iii. 
p.  829.) :  Spiritum  concupiscentiae  Manichaei  substantiam  dicunt  esse  malam, 
non  vitium  substantiae  bonae,  quo  caro  concupiscit  adversus  Spiritum.  But  let 
us  hear  Manes  himself.  In  his  Epistle  to  Menoch,  (1.  c.  p.  828,  829.)  he  warmly 
contends  that  the  good  soul  cannot  do  wrong  or  sin  :  Cum  animo  nolente  coeunt 
et  secretis  pudoribus  gerunt,  quo  tempore  odio  habent  lucem,  uti  ne  manifes- 
tentur  opera  eorum.  Cujus  rei  gratia  ait  Apostolus:  Non  est  volentis :  ut 
subaudiatur,  hoc  opus.  Sive  euim  bonum  geramus,  non  est  carnis  :  quia  mani- 
festa  sunt  opera  carnis,  quae  sunt  fornicatio,  &,c.  She  malum  geramus,  non  est 
animcc  :  quia  fructus  Spiritus  pax,  gaudium  est.  Denique  clamat  et  ad  Roma- 
nos  Apostolus :  Non  bonum,  quod  volo,  ago,  ^ed  malum  operor,  quod  exhorreo. 
Videtis  vocem  animae  contumacis,  contra  concupiscentinm  defendentem  liber- 
tatem  animae.  Dolebat  enini,  (juia  pecatum,  id  est,  Dinbolus  operaretur  in  se 
omnem  concupiscentiam.     Legalis  auctoritas  indicat  malum  ejus,  cum  omnes 


Formation  of  Man,  329 

ejus  usiis  vitupcrat,  quos  caro  miratur  et  laudat :  omnia  enim  amaritiuio  con- 
cupiseentiae  suavis  est  animae,  per  quam  nutritur  anima  et  ad  vi^i^oivm  aecitur. 
Denique  coercentis  se  ab  oinni  usu  concupiseentiae  animus  vinril;,t,  diliitur  et 
creseit :  per  usum  autem  concupiscentiae  consuevit  decrescere.  He  adds  other 
things  of  the  same  nature ;  but  I  omit  them,  because  these  are  sufficient  to  ex- 
hibit his  opinion. — Yet,  in  a  certain  way,  all  the  sins  of  the  depraved  and 
vicious  soul,  pertain  also  to  the  good  soul.  For  this  soul  is  required  to  repress 
the  passions  and  lusts  of  the  evil  soul,  and  to  keep  it  in  subjection  :  and  it  has 
ability  to  fulfil  this  divine  command.  If,  therefore,  it  is  neglectful  of  its  duty, 
and  suffers  the  lust  of  the  evil  soul  to  predominate,  it  is  not  only  weakened 
thereby,  but  it  contracts  guilt,  and,  in  a  sense,  sins  through  the  evil  soul,  whii-h 
it  ought  to  restrain.  That  Manes  so  thought,  is  manifest  from  his  commend- 
ing penitence,  and  promising  forgiveness  of  sins  to  the  penitent.  See  [p.  817.] 
Augustine's  Tract  de  duabus  animabus,  (c.  12.  p.  64.)  :  nunquara  negaverunt, 
dari  veniam  peccatorum,  cum  fuerit  ad  Deum  quisque  conversus :  nunquam  dix- 
erunt  (ut  alia  multa)  quod  Scripturis  divinis  hoc  quispiam  corrupter  inseruerit. 
And  (ch.  14.  p.  65.)  :  Inter  omnes  sanos  constat,  et  quod  ip.^i  Manichaei  non 
solum  fatentur,  sed  et  praecipiunt,  utile  esse  poenitere  peccati.  Augustine,  in 
this  place,  slily  asks  the  Manichaeans,  Whether  it  is  the  good  soul  or  the  bad 
one  that  repents  1  And  he  says  :  Si  animam  tenebrarum  peccati  poenitet,  non 
est  de  substantia  summi  mali :  (Well  said !)  Si  animam  lucis,  non  est  de  sub- 
stantia surami  boni.  (This  argument,  the  Manichaeans  would  easily  answer. 
For  they  would  say.  The  good  soul  does  not  itself  sin,  but  by  permilting 
the  sins  of  the  evil  soul,  it  becomes  guilty.)  But  there  was  no  need  of  Augus- 
tine's asking  the  question,  since  it  is  manifest,  that  repentance  is  the  act  of  the 
good  soul  and  not  of  the  bad  one.  For  if  the  latter  could  feel  sorrow  for  its 
sins,  it  would  not  be  wholly  evil.  These  doctrines  of  Manes,  in  regard  to  the 
duty  and  the  powers  of  the  good  soul,  and  the  utility  of  repentance,  show,  that 
Manes  attributed  to  the  good  soul  not  merely  intelligence,  but  also  a  will, 
feelings,  and  emotions  ;  notwithstanding  he  seems  to  exclude  from  it  all  incli- 
nation, desire,  and  passion.  And  yet,  to  tell  the  truth,  the  opinions  of  the  Ma- 
nichceans  respecting  the  two-fold  soul  of  man,  are  not  altogether  clear :  and 
hence  they,  as  well  as  their  founder,  appear  to  have  doubted  how  they  ought 
to  think,  and  to  have  expressed  their  opinions  in  dubious  and  equivocal  terms. 
Still,  from  what  they  have  said,  it  is  evident,  I  think,  that  those  are  mistaken, 
who  once  held,  or  now  hold,  that  the  Manichaeans  considered  the  soul  to  be  tied 
down  by  fjite  and  necessity.  The  evil  soul  indeed  is  enslaved,  and,  by  its  very 
nature,  is  borne  on  to  all  kinds  of  concupiscence  and  wickedness.  But  the  good 
soul,  although  somewhat  weakened  and  fettered  by  its  evil  associate,  yet 
possesses  free  volition,  even  in  the  body  ;  and  it  can,  according  to  its  ple;isiire, 
either  authoritatively  restrain  and  curb  its  associate,  or  sutler  it  to  be  guided  by 
its  depraved  instincts.  And  whenever  it  does  the  first  of  these,  it  advances  its 
own  interests,  gains  strength,  and  becomes  more  fit  for  a  return  to  the  world 
of  light ;  but  when  it  does  the  last,  it  incurs  salutary  chastisement  at  tlie  hands 
of  God. 


330  Century  Ill—Section  40. 

§  XLVI.   Formation  of  this  our  World.    Its  structure  and  design. 

Man  having  been  formed  by  the  Prince  of  darkness,  and  the 
souls,  those  daughters  of  light,  inclosed  in  his  body,  and  the 
celestial  elements  combined  with  matter  or  with  the  elements  of 
the  world  of  darkness ;  nothing  remained  for  God,  Avho  was  de- 
sirous of  rescuing  those  souls  and  the  celestial  elements,  except, 
to  form  from  the  vitiated  inatter  ad  intermediate  world,  between 
[p.  818.]  the  world  of  light  and  that  of  darkness,  and  compound- 
ed of  both ;  which  should  afford  to  men  a  domicile,  and  to  God 
a  suitable  opportunity  for  carrying  out  his  purpose  of  gradually 
extracting  the  souls  from  the  bodies,  and  separating  the  good 
matter  from  the  bad,  and  restoring  both  to  the  world  of  light.(') 
Therefore,  by  God's  command,  the  Living  Sinrit,  who  had  already 
conquered  the  Prince  of  darkness,  constructed  this  our  world. 
In  doing  so,  he  first  fabricated  the  sun  and  moon,  from  matter 
that  had  not  been  corrupted ;  then,  from  that  which  was  but  lit- 
tle contaminated,  he  formed  the  ether,  and  the  stars  which  re- 
volve in  the  ether ;  and  lastly,  from  that  which  was  entirely  per- 
vaded by  depraved  matter,  he  constructed  this  our  earth. (^)  And, 
as  the  son  of  the  Frrst  Man^  whose  name  was  Jesus^  w^as  still  de- 
tained a  captive  in  the  bodies  of  the  Prince  of  darkness  and  his 
associates,  those  miserable  Beings  were  to  be  confined,  lest  they 
should  abscond  with  their  plunder:  and  therefore  i\\Q Living  Spi- 
rit chained  them  to  the  stars.  This  measure  was  necessary  and 
wise,  and  on  many  accounts  exceedingly  useful ;  and  yet  it  was 
a  source  of  troubles  and  dangers.  For  these  Princes  of  evil,  from 
the  stars  w^here  they  dwell,  not  only  lay  snares  for  good  minds, 
but  also  send  down  upon  our  world  hosts  of  evils,  pestilences, 
thunders,  lightnings,  tempests,  war,  &c.Q  And  lest  so  vast  a 
world  should  fall  and  come  to  pieces,  a  very  powerful  Being 
from  the  world  of  light,  by  divine  command,  props  it  up  and 
sustains  it.  His  name  is  Omophorus^  significant  of  the  very  one- 
rous task  he  has  to  perform.  And  lest  he  should  succumb  under 
such  a  burden,  an  assistant  is  given  him,  to  hold  the  suspended 
orb  steady.  He  is  a  Being  equally  strong  and  robust,  and  bears 
the  name  of  Splenditenens.(') 

(1)  That  our  world  was  created,  according  to  Manes,  not  only  with  the 
knowledge  and  consent  of  God,  but  also  Ly  his  command,  there  can  be  no 
doubt.     And,  therefore,  those  do  him  injustice,  wiio  tell  us  that  the  Prince  of 


J^ 


Formation  of  thin    World.  ^31 

darkness  was  the  former  of  the  material  universe  :  unless,  possibly,  they  mean 
no  more  than  that  the  Cause  of  all  evil  produced  the  oecaKion,or,  if  you  choose, 
the  necessity  for  God  to  construct  the  world.  Says  Av<rnsiwe,  (de  llaercs. 
c.  42,  p.  11.)  :  Mundum  a  natura  boni,  hoc  est,  a  natura  Dei  (He  means  that 
Being  or  nature,  born  of  God,  which  the  Manichaeans  called  the  Living  Spirit,) 
factum,  eonfitentur  quidem,  aed  de  coramixtione  boni  et  mali,  quae  facta  est, 
quando  inter  se  utraque  natura  pugnavit.  And  so  Avgusline  explains  his  views 
in  other  passages.  Thus,  (contra  Faustum,  L.  xx.  c.  9.  p.  240.)  ;  Vos  [p.  819.] 
primnm  hominem  cum  quinque  dementis  belligerantem  et  Spiriium  poientem 
(who  is  also  called  viiens)  de  captivis  eorporibus  gentis  tenebrarum,  an  potius 
de  meinbris  Dei  vestri  victis  atque  subjectis  mumdum  fabricaniem  creditis.  See 
also  the  Exordium  of  his  first  Dispute  with  Fortunatus,  p.  67.  And  Foriunatus 
himself,  (in  this  first  dispute,  p.  72.)  says:  Constat,  non  esse  unam  substan- 
tiam,  licet  ex  unius  (bonne)  jussione  eadem  ad  compositionem  hujus  mundi  et 
faciem  venerint.  Although  Fortunatus  here,  as  Augustine  himself  often,  says 
that  God  formed  the  world ;  yet  we  must  understand  it  to  have  been  only  by 
the  direction  or  command  of  God.  For  it  would  not  be  suitable  for  God  him- 
self, a  most  pure  and  holy  Being,  to  put  his  own  hand  to  the  work  :  so  that,  what 
God  is  said  to  have  done,  he  only  caused  to  be  done  by  his  minister,  the  Living 
Spi7'it ;  whom  Alexander  of  Lycopolis  (contra  Manichaeos  p.  4.)  calls  SMUicvpyov. 
— The  causes  which  induced  God  to  order  a  world  formed,  from  impure  and 
defiled  matter,  may  be  understood  from  what  has  been  stated.  The  first  and 
principal  cause  was  the  human  race,  which,  as  God  could  easily  foresee,  would 
be  born  and  propagated.  For  the  crafty  Prince  of  evil  had  collected  the 
whole  mass  of  souls  that  he  had  captured,  and  placed  them  beyond  the  reach 
of  the  Living  Spirit,  by  depositing  them  all  in  the  single  body  of  Adam  : 
and  then  he  gave  him  Eve  for  a  wife,  and  Adam  overcome  by  her  blandish- 
ments had  begun  to  procreate  children.  By  this  artifice  the  liberation  of  j-ouIs, 
for  which  God  was  solicitous,  was  rendered  a  long  and  tedious  process;  and 
during  its  continuance,  some  place  was  to  be  prepared  in  which  Adam  and  his 
posterity  might  reside.  This  cause  for  creating  the  world,  of  which  we  have 
heretofore  treated,  is  expressly  mentioned  by  Ti/rbo,(\n  the  Acta  Disput.  ^rc/ie- 
lai  5  10.  p.  20.)  where,  having  spoken  of  the  formation  of  the  first  human 
beings   by    the    Prince  of  evil,  he   closes   the   passage   with   these   words : 

Kat   S'la  rovToeV  ycyoviv   «    irxao-ic    tou    Kcxr/uoyj,  Ik    tm?  tow     "Apyf^ovrc^    i'lijuiovpy  i-xi, 

Et  propter  haec  (on  account  of  Adam  and  Eve,)  factum  est  figmentum  (the 
fobric)  mundi,  propter  fabricationem  nimirum  Principis  (malorum),  who  had 
made  the  first  man.  In  addition  to  this  first  cause,  there  was  another.  In  the 
conflict  of  the  Prince  of  darkness  with  the  First  iMan,  celestial  matter  had  be- 
come completely  commingled  and  coherent  with  malignant  matter;  and  to  sepa- 
rate it  from  the  evil  elements,  and  restore  it  to  its  primitive  state,  which  was  the 
wish  of  God,  would  be  a  vast  undertaking,  and  would  require  a  very  long  time,  if 
that  matter  remained  in  a  confused  and  chaotic  state.  But  if  assorted  and  arrang- 
ed in  proper  order,  the  good  and  divine  might  with  greater  ease  be  severed  from 
the  evil  and  the  vicious;  and  thus  in  a  shorter  time,  that  complete  separation 
which  God  desired,  might  be  effected.    See  Tlieodoret,  (Ilocrct.  Fabul.  [p.  $20.] 


332  Century  III.— Section  46. 

L.  i.  c.  26.  p.  213.)  Lnstl}',  the  matter  which  the  Livivg  Spirit  had  wrested 
from  the  grasp  of  the  Lord  of  evil,  was  not  all  of  one  kind  ;  some  portions  of  it 
were  better,  purer  and  more  holy  than  others ;  for  some  portions  had  contract- 
ed more,  and  others  less  vitiosity  and  malignity  in  that  contest.  And  this  diver- 
sity in  the  condition  of  the  matter,  rendered  a  separation  and  distribution 
necessary. — The  pattern  for  the  new  world  he  was  about  to  form,  the  Liv- 
ing Spirit  undoubtedly  borrowed  from  the  world  of  light.  Our  world  contains 
the  same  elements  as  the  world  of  light,  although  our  elements  are  polluted ; 
and  they  are  arranged  in  the  same  order,  as  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  Our  world, 
therefore,  is  a  sort  of  picture  or  im:ige  of  that  blessed  world,  where  God  and  the 
innumerable  host  of  his^Eons  dwell.  It  was  a  common  opinion  among  the  peo- 
ple of  the  East,  and  one  prevalent  among  the  Gnostics,  that  this  our  world  was 
formed  after  the  model  of  the  upper  or  celestial  world.  Moreover  the  Mani- 
chaeans  divided  this  material  universe  into  two  parts,  the  heavens  and  the  earth. 
The  Heavens  they  reckoned  to  be  ten  in  number,  if  we  may  believe  Augustine ; 
but  of  earths,  they  reckoned  but  eight.  Thus  Augustine  says  to  Faustus,  (L. 
xxii.  c.  19.  p  327.):  Unde  scis,  oeto  esse  terras  et  decern  coelos,  quod  Atlas 
muiidum  ferat,  Splenditenensque  suspendat,  et  innumerabilia  talia,  unde  scis 
haec  ?  Plane,  inquis,  Manicha3us  me  docuit.  Sed  infelix  credidisti,  neque  enim 
vidisti.  As  to  the  number  of  heavens,  I  make  no  question :  but  as  to  the  earths, 
I  have  abundant  reasons  for  doubt,  since  I  no  where  find  the  Manichaeans 
speaking  of  more  than  one  earth,  as  being  laid  upon  the  shoulders  of  their 
Omnphorus.  There  is  indeed  a  passage  in  the  Latin  version  of  the  Acta  Arche- 
lai.  (5  7.  p.  11.)  which  resembles  that  of  Augustine  ;  Et  iterum  (Spiritus  vivens) 
creavit  terram,  et  sunL  oclo.  But  in  the  Greek  of  Epiphanius,  it  reads :  E';j  tiJ'n 
cATo).  Creavit  terram  octupli  forma,  sen  specie.  And  this  reading  certainly  ac- 
cords better  with  the  preceding  noun,  terram,  of  the  singular  number;  and  also 
with  the  whole  narration  of  Tyrbo,  who  uniformly  speaks  of  but  one  earth,  than 
it  does  with  the  words  of  the  Latin  translator,  who  seems  to  have  read  E'/<rt  cTe, 
instead  of  e/c  aS'ii.  Neither  will  the  Manichaean  notion  of  a  single  world- 
bearer  or  Omophorus,  admit  of  more  earths  than  one.  For  how,  I  pray,  could 
that  one  Omophorus  carry  eight  worlds,  in  whatever  manner  you  arrange  them? 
I  therefore  suppose  that  Augustine  was  deceived,  either  by  the  ambiguity  of  the 
w^ords,  or  perhaps  by  the  mistake  of  the  Latin  trashitor  of  Archelaus,  and  be- 
lieved the  Manichaeans'  earth  to  be  an  octagon.  That  the  Manichaeans  assigned 
to  the  heavens  a  roiind  or  spherical  form,  Cosmas  Indicopleustes  alone  informs 
us,  (in  his  Topographia  Chistiana,  published  by  Montfaucon  in  his  Nova  Collectio 
Patrura  Graecor.  torn.  ii.  L.  vi.  p.  270,  271.)  :  M^v/;^*?©/  tov  <rt  ovpavdv  arpcttfonSn 
vo/ut^ovra.  Manichaei  aestimant  eoelum  sphasricum  esse.  This  passage  offers 
occasion  to  correct  a  striking  error  of  the  learned  Beausohre  (vol.  2.  p.  374.) 
[p.  821.]  He  asserts,  that  Cosmas  above  cited,  tells  us  that  Manes  was  an  ex- 
cellent mathematician :  and  this  testimony  of  Cosmas,  he  thinks,  is  a  strong 
proof  that  Manes  possessed  much  genius  and  learning.  For  he  supposes  Coi- 
mas  to  be  speaking  of  Manes,  (L.  vi.  as  above,  p.  264.)  where  he  says: 
Ms;;^5tv/Kou  dvS'pds  x.al  Koytou  k*i  v-rtp  -roW'Ttv  iunip'.u.  Vir  mechanicus  et  doc- 
tus,  multos  peritia  rerum  superans.  But  this  eulogium  is  not  bestowed  by  Cos- 


Formation  of  this    World.  333 

mas  on  our  Manea^  "but  on  .1  certain  Eg"yptian  niathcniaticlnn,  whose  name  was 
Ariastnsius.  I  sii})poHe  it  was  iin  error  of  the  eye,  and  that  tlie  learned  man  read 
Muvt^^ur.vy  insteaci  of  Mi^'^viKouy  whieli  is  the  word  usod  hy  Cosinas. 

(2)  The  matter,  from  which  the  Living  Spiril  had  to  form  the  world  which 
God  commanded,  was  of  different  kinds.  Some  of  it  was  perfectly  pure,  having 
remained  uncontaminated.  Another  portion  was  slightly  contaminated  wi;h 
base  matter;  and  another  was  wholly  immersed  in  bad  matter.  Interspersed 
with  these  was  a  portion  of  the  depraved  elements,  or  evil  fire,  left  behind  by 
the  t]yin<r  leaders  of  darkness,  and  not  at  all  modified  by  the  celestial  elements. 
To  this  very  different  condition  of  the  materials  to  be  used,  the  builder  of  the 
world  had  to  pay  attention  in  the  execution  of  his  work.  Manes,  or  the 
Magians,  from  whom  he  learned  his  doctrine,  had  to  so  imagine  things,  as  to  be 
able  to  account  for  the  great  dissimilarity  in  the  different  parts  of  this  material 
universe.  The  whole  system,  as  I  have  already  said,  was  absurd  and  futile,  and 
especially  if  tested  by  the  precepts  of  the  bible  and  of  sound  reason ;  but  if 
tried  by  the  opinions  and  conceptions  of  the  Persians  and  other  Oriental  nations, 
it  will  appear  more  tolerable;  and  there  really  was  genius  and  ingenuity  in  its 
conception  and  plan,  and  in  the  nice  adjustment  of  its  parts. — The  founder  of 
the  world,  therefore,  first  collected  and  arranged  that  celestial  matter,  which 
was  not  defiled  with  the  contagion  of  evil,  and  had  remained  pure  and  uncon- 
taminated by  the  war.  Of  the  good  fire  and  the  light,  he  constructed  the  sun; 
and  of  the  good  water,  he  formed  the  moon.  Thus  Tyi'bo,  (in  the  Acta  Disput. 
Archelai,  §  7.  p.  11.):  Tunc  vivens  Spiritus  creavit  mundum,  et  indutus  alias  tres 
virtutes  descendcns  creavit  luminaria  (tcwj  ipoea-Tiipa;,  the  sun  and  moon,)  quee  sunt 
relicjuioe  aniraa3,  a  icru  t«c  4'^/C"?  ki'i-^-jlvu.  (we  have  already  remarked,  that  Tyrbo 
calls  all  the  celestial  elements  -{vx^^v^  animam;  for  they  were  all  animated,)  et 
fecit  ea  firmamentum  (to  a-npcafAct)  circumire.  Augustine,  (de  Hseres.  c.  46.  p.  11.) 
says:  Quas  itidem  naves  (we  shall  see  in  the  proper  place,  that  the  Manichceana 
called  the  sun  and  moon  ships,  or  compared  them  to  ships,)  de  subsianiid  Dei 
purd  perhibent  fabricatas.  Lucemque  istara  corpoream  -  -  in  his  navibus  puris.si- 
77?a7n  credunt.  Andnotinconsistentwith  this,is  the  declaration,  (L.xxi.c.  4.  p.  251.): 
Solem  tarn  magnum  bonum  putalis,  ut  nee  factum  (created  from  nothing,)  a 
Deo  putatis,  sed  prolatura  vel  missum  esse  credatis;  i.  e.  consists  of  celestial 
matter,  which  emanated  from  the  essence  of  God.  Compare,  besides  [p.  822.] 
others,  Simplicius,  (on  Epictetus,  p.  167.)  and  Titus  of  Bostra,  (contra  ]\Iani- 
chaeos,  p.  99.)  who  says:  Solem  Manichaeus  decernit  non  habere  mixtionem 
mail.  And  hence  the  Son  of  God  himself,  and  many  other  celestial  Beings  of 
the  highest  dignity  and  power,  have  fixed  their  residence  in  the  sun  and  moon. 
Whence  Fausfus,  (apud  August.  L.  xx.  c.  1.  p.  237.)  calls  the  sun  and  moon 
divina  Lmnina. — Of  the  good  air  or  ether  that  remained  unpolluted,  I  find 
nothing  said.  But,  since  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  we  have  heretofore  remarked, 
dwells  in  the  ether  that  encompasses  our  earth,  and  he  cannot  possiljly  have  in- 
tercourse with  corrupt  matter;  we  are  obliged  to  believe,  that  a  good  part  of 
the  celestial  ether,  in  the  battle  with  the  Prince  of  darkness,  escaped  the  con. 
tamination  of  the  smoke  or  bad  ether,  and  was  collected  together  by  the  Living 
Spirit, — The  pure  matter  being  properly  located,  the  framer  of  the  world  pro- 


334  Century  III.— Section  4G. 

ceeded  to  that  which  had  only  a  small  portion  of  depraved  matter  mixed  witn 
it.  Out  of  this  slightly  defiled  matter,  he  formed  the  heavens  and  the  stars. 
For  the  stars  emit  light,  though  less  in  quantity  and  more  obscure  than  the  sun 
and  moon.  And  therefore,  it  must  have  been  concluded,  that  a  considerable 
portion  of  light  is  in  the  heavens  and  the  stars,  though  they  are  not  intirely  free 
from  defilement.  Says  Alexander  of  Lycopolis,  (contra  Mnnichaeos,  p.  6  and  15.): 
To  J"t   cv  /uiT^idL  yeycYCi   kukIu.    d<rrffit.i  xut    tov    ou^avov    a-ufATrsLvra..      Ex   partlbus 

autem  materiae  mediocri  a  pravitate  pollutis  fecit  sidera  et  universum  coelum. 
Hence  Simplicius  (in  Epictetus,  p.  167.)  says,  The  Manichaeans  worshipped 
only  the  sun  and  moon,  ris  tou  dyct^-oZ  (AoifA^  Xt^cvrej  avTovcy  quae  sidera 
dicunt  boni  (id  est,  Dei)  partem  esse;  but  the  other  heavenly  bodies,  they  des- 
pise, wj  T>)j  Toy  KAMu  fAoipas  ovTcovy  quae  ad  malum  (Daemonem)  pertineant. 
Yet  these  declarations  properly  refer,  not  to  the  matter  of  the  heavenly  bodies, 
but  to  the  inhabitants  of  those  bodies.  For,  as  we  shall  soon  show,  the  Demons 
dwell  in  them.  Says  Augustine,  (Confessiones,  L.  xiii.  c.  30.  0pp.  torn.  I.  p.  181.) : 
Dicunt  te  fecisse  fabricas  coelorura  et  compositiones  siderum,  et  haec  non  de 
tuo,{i\\Sii  is,  not  from  matter  altogether  pure  and  celestial)  sed  jam  fuisse  alibi 
areata,  quae  tu  contraheres  et  compaginares  atque  contexeres,  cum  de  hostibus 
victis  mundana  raoenia  molireris. — After  the  heavens  and  the  stars,  the  world- 
builder  framed  this  earth;  as  Tyrho  clearly  asserts,  (in  the  Acta  Disput. 
Archelai,  p.  11.)  :  Kai  yrdXiv  'Uria-i  T«v  yh.  Et  denuo  (after  making  the  heavens 
and  the  stars,)  terram  conficiebat.  The  earth  is  composed  of  that  portion  of 
matter,  which  contained  more  evil  than  good,  or  into  which  the  elements  of 
darkness  had  completely  insinuated  themselves.  Says  Tyrho,  (1.  c.  ^  8.  p.  18.): 
IMundus  autem  ex  parte  materiae  (t«j  vx«f,  so  the  Manichaeans  call  the  evil 
principle,)  plasmatus  est,  et  ideo  omnia  exterminabuntur,  of  will  be  destroyed. — 
Lastly,  such  matter  as  had  not  come  in  contact  with  any  portion  of  the  celestial 
matter, — as  the  bad  fire,  wind,  air,  and  water,  which  the  vanquished  princes  of 
[p.  823.]  darkness  had  left  behind,  he  cast  intirely  out  of  the  world,  and  erected 
strong  walls  to  keep  it  from  entering  and  destroying  it  before  the  appointed 
time.  Tyrho,  (1.  c.  p.  22.)  mentions:  to  tiI^o?  tou  ,uiydKov  Trupoi,  murum  mag- 
ni  ignis,  murum  item  venti,  aeris  et  aquae :  So  that  each  sort  of  evil  matter  ex- 
cluded from  our  world,  had  its  own  separate  wall,  to  keep  it  out.  Augustine 
likewise  occasionally  mentions  the  mounds  (aggeres),  by  which  God  excludes 
-!  icious  matter  from  our  world.  (See  his  Confessiones,  L.  xiii.  c.  30.  and  else- 
where.) But  at  the  end  of  the  world,  this  evil  and  devouring  fire  will  issue  from 
its  prison,  the  mounds  being  removed;  and  then  it  will  consume  and  destroy 
the  whole  fabric  of  our  world. 

(3)  Before  he  commenced  fabricating  the  world,  the  Living  Spirit  im- 
prisoned the  Prince  of  darkness,  and  his  associates  and  captains,  in  the  air. 
Tyrho,  (in  the  Acta  Disput.  Archelai,  ip.  11.)  says:  Tunc  Spiritus  vivens  de- 
scendens  eduxit  principes  (tenebrarum)  et  crucifixit  eos  in  firmamento,  quod  est 
eorum  corpus,  (Greek,  o  iarlv  duTuv  o-w^^t,)  site  sphaera.  On  this  passage,  we 
may  remark,  first,  that  the  word  ciucifixit  must  not  be  construed  too  rigorously. 
For,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  the  princes  of  evil  were  held  in  quite  free  custody, 
and,  at  their  pleasure,  could  do  many  things  contrary  to  the  will  of  God.   Hence 


Formation  of  this    World.  335 

crucifixil  must  mean  no  more  than  he  stationed,  required  them  to  reside.  Besides 
the  Greek  of  Epipha7iius  h;is  not  the  word  lcrTaupa^<rt,  but  i^-Ti^taa*,  that  \h.  he 
BO  stationed  them,  that  they  coukl  not  change  their  residence,  he  assigned  them 
a  fixed  and  constant  abode.  Perhaps  this  reading  is  more  correct  than  that 
wliieh  the  Latin  translator  of  the  Acta  Archelai  had  before  him :  and  yet  the 
latter  is  sap{)orted  by  Epiphanius  and  Damascenus,  who  retain  it.  What  fol- 
lows, namely,  that  the  firmament  is  the  corpus  (o-w^*)  of  the  Demons,  is  so 
contrary  to  the  views  of  the  Manichaeans,  that  it  must  be  regarded  as  spurious. 
It  should  undoubtedly  read  /w^a,  domus,  or  domicilium.  The  heavens  are  the 
seat  or  house,  in  which  the  Living  Spirit  commanded  the  princes  of  darkness  to 
abide,  until  the  time  when  God  should  order  them  to  return  to  their  ancient 
abode.  This  heaven,  it  is  added,  is  a  sphere  or  globe.  Here,  therefore,  is  another 
passage,  beside  that  of  Cosmas,  adduced  while  treating  of  the  heavens,  from 
which  I  now  again  learn  that  the  Manichaeans  assigned  a  globular  form  to  the 
heavens. — This  passage  of  Tijrbo,  and  others  of  the  ancients  which  accord  with 
\t,  only  indicate  in  general  the  place  where  the  authors  of  all  evils  are  detained. 
But  Beausohre,  (vol.  II.  p.  353.)  wishes  to  determine  precisely,  in  what  part  of 
the  air  or  heavens  they  are  located ;  and  he  thinks  he  proves,  by  the  authority 
of  Theodnrel,  and  Simplicius,  that  they  were  confined  in  the  southern  regions  of 
the  sky.  But  vain  are  the  eflforts  of  the  ingenious  man.  For  Simplicius,  (comment, 
in  Epictet.  p.  2. 12.)  and  Theodoret  (Haeret.  Fabul.  L.  I.  c.  26.  Opp.  tom.  iv.  p.  212.) 
merely  say,  that  Jiane.s  assigned  three  parts  to  God  or  the  world  of  light,  the  East, 
the  West,  and  the  North ;  and  only  one,  the  South,  to  the  Demon  or  the  [p.  824.] 
world  of  darkness.  Says  Theodoret^  and  with  him  Siynplicius  agrees  perfectly: 
l^ilv  rdv  fAiv  Qiov  TtiT-s  dpicrda  /u.ip>iy  Kal  tu  ioia,  xat  to.  'oTTrepiay  T«y  eTi  i;X»i»  ra  voria. 
Tenuisse  Deum  (before  the  war  w^th  the  Prince  of  darkness,)  partes  Septen- 
trionales,  Orientales  et  Occidentales,  materiam  vero  Meridionales.  Thus,  by 
these  authorities,  the  position  of  the  world  of  darkness  is  indeed  defined ;  but 
not  the  residence  of  the  Demons,  beyond  our  earth,  since  they  were  vanf|ui>hed 
by  the  Licing  Spirit.  We  will  adduce  something  from  Augustine,  which  is 
better  and  more  certain.  The  conquered  Demons  were  stationed  by  the  Living 
Spirit  in  the  stars.  And  the  more  celestial  matter  any  of  them  had  in  his  body, 
the  higher  and  loftier  place  he  obtained.  Augustine,  (contra  Faustum,  L.  vi. 
c.  8.  p.  149.)  says:  Dicunt  isti  vaniloqui  et  mentis  seduclores,  in  ilia  pugna, 
quando  primus  eorum  homo  tenebrarum  gentem  dementis  fallacibus  irretivit, 
utriusque  sexus  principibus  indidem  captis,  cum  ex  eis  mundus  construeretur, 
plerosque  eorum  in  coelesiibus  fabricis  (thus  Augustine  frequently  designates 
the  stars.)  colligatos  esse.  -  -  In  ipsa  structura  mundi  eosdcm  principes  tenebra- 
rum ita  per  omnes  contextiones  (ss.  the  stars,)  a  summis  usque  ad  ima  colliga- 
tos  dicunt,  ut  quanto  quisque  amplius  haberent  commixti  boni  (of  the  celestial 
elements  and  a  sentient  soul,)  tanto  sublimius  collocari  mererentur.  The  stars, 
as  before  observed,  are  composed  of  matter,  for  the  most  part  good,  yet  slightly 
tinctured  with  evil.  Yet  the  stars  are  not  all  of  one  character ;  some  are  more 
pure  and  sound  than  others.  Those  nearest  to  the  earth,  contain  more  doj)raved 
matter,  than  those  higher  or  farther  olT.  Therefore,  the  Ijiving  Spirit,  according 
to  the  rules  of  equity,  stationed  those  Demons  who  possessed  the  smallest 


336  Century  IIL—Scctlon  46. 

portion  of  celestial  matter,  in  the  lower  stars  which  are  less  pure;  while  to 
those  possessiiiir  a  greater  portion  of  the  celestial  elements,  he  assigned  a  resi- 
dence in  the  higher  and  purer  stars.  In  what  phice  the  Prince  of  evil  himself 
resides,  whether,  as  may  be  supposed,  in  the  highest  and  loftiest  of  the  moving 
stars  or  planets,  or  beyond  all  the  stars  in  the  open  heavens,  no  one,  so  far  as  I 
know,  has  informed  us.  But  as  he  contains  in  his  immense  body  more  celestial 
matter  than  all  his  fedow-warriors,  it  can  scarcely  be  doubted,  that  Saturn,  the 
highest  of  the  planets,  is  his  residence;  and  there  also  the  Gnostic  multitude 
located  their  Jaldabacth,  or  Prince  of  the  aerial  Demons. 

But  the  Princes  of  evil  are  not  so  confined  and  tied  to  the  stars,  that  they 
cannot  accomplish  or  plot  anything.  They  cannot,  indeed,  leave  their  places  ; 
but  in  other  respects,  they  are  most  busy  and  active,  and  they  bring  to  pass 
numerous  things  adverse  to  the  kingdom  and  purposes  of  God.  In  the  first 
place,  they  hold  a  sort  of  dominion  over  the  stars  which  they  inhabit.  For  they 
are  not  solitary  beings  there,  as  Augustine  clearly  intimates  in  the  passage 
just  quoted,  but,  together  with  their  wives,  and  the  animals  of  the  world  of 
darkness  captured  in  the  war,  they  live  there,  and  beget  and  bring  forth  oflfspring. 
[p.  825.]  Of  course  there  is,  undoubtedly,  in  each  star,  a  sort  of  commonwealth 
or  state,  which  some  one,  more  potent  than  the  rest,  governs.  In  the  next 
place,  they  strive  to  establish  and  confirm  that  empire,  which,  contrary  to  the 
will  of  God,  they  founded  on  the  earth,  by  the  generation  and  propagation  of 
mankind ;  and  they  guard  and  defend  it,  against  the  efforts  of  God  for  its  sub- 
version. The  manner  in  which  they  do  this,  may  be  easily  understood,  Au- 
gustine expressly  states,  that  all  the  leaders  of  darkness  are  not  confined  in  the 
st  irs,  but  only  the  major  part  of  them.  Many  of  them,  therefore,  roam  freely 
through  the  air,  tar  from  the  stars.  And  these,  doubtless,  the  Prince  of  evil 
and  his  associates  employ  as  their  satellites  and  ministers,  in  accomplishing 
among  men  their  plans  for  advancing  the  interests  of  their  empire  on  the  earth. 
The  great  solicitude  of  the  Prince  of  evil  is,  to  withdraw  the  inhabitants  of  the 
earth  from  the  knov/ledge  of  the  true  God,  and  to  induce  them  to  adore  and 
worship  himself  instead  of  God.  For  this  purpose,  he  introduces  fiilse  religions, 
by  means  of  his  legates  and  prophets ;  that  is,  by  men  actuated  and  im{)elled 
by  himself  Of  this  nature  was  the  Jewish  religion,  which  Moses  brought  for- 
ward under  the  influence  of  the  Demon:  and  such  were  the  pagan  religions,  prevail- 
ing over  the  world.  Tyrho,  (in  the  Acta  Archelai,  p.  18.)  repeats  from  the  lips  of 
MaiveSy  thus  :  De  prophetisautem  ha3C  dicit :  Spiritus  esse  impietatis  sive  iniquita- 
tis  tenebrarum  illarum,  quaj  ab  initio  ascenderunt,  a  quibus  decepti,  non  sunt  lo- 
cuti  in  veritatc  :  excaecavit  enim  Prineeps  ille  mentes  ipsorum,  et  si  quis  sequitur 
verba  ipsorum,  morietur  in  ssccula,  devinctus  intra  massam  (uz  tyiv  jBuXou-  i,  e. 
the  world  of  darkness,  to  which,  as  we  shall  see,  those  souls  that  cannot  in  any 
way  be  reclaimed,  will  be  confined,)  quoniam  non  didicit  scientiam  Paracliti. 
And  again,  (§  11.  p,  20,) :  Ilium  vero,  qui  locutus  est  cum  Mose,  et  Juda3is  et 
sacerdotibus,  Principem  esse  dicit  tenebrarum  ;  Et  ideo  unum  atque  idem  sunt 
Christiani  et  Judsei  et  gentes  eundem  Deum  colentes:  in  concupiscentiis  enim 
Buis  seducit  eos,  quia  non  est  Deus  veritatis.  Propter  hoc  ergo  quicumque  in 
ilium  Deum  sperant,  qui  cum  Moyse  locutus  est  et  prophetis,  cum  ipso  habent 


Formation  of  this    World,  337 

vinculis  tradl,  quia  non  spcraverunt  in  Deum  veritatis  :  ille  enim  secundum  con- 
cupiscentias  suas  locutus  est  cum  eis.  And  these  severe  censures,  which  Vaiis- 
tiis  the  Manichcean,  in  many  p:issagcs  occurring  in  Augustine.,  casts  upon  tho 
Mosaic  law,  clearly  show,  that  the  sect  believed  the  intire  Jewish  law  and  re- 
ligion, to  be  an  invention  of  tlie  Prince  of  darkness  for  deceiving  the  Jews. 
What  this  audacious  Faustus  thought  of  the  Old  Testament  prophets,  appears 
from  his  own  words,  (L.  xii.  c.  1.  p.  1G2.):  Exempla  vita3  honestae  et  prudcn- 
liam  ac  virtutcm  in  prophetis  quocrimus  :  quorum  nihil  in  Judasorum  fuissc  va- 
tibus,  quia  te  non  latuerit  sentio.  He  also  assails  Moses  with  very  great  re- 
pronehes,  (in  several  places,  one  of  them  is  L.  xiv,  c.  1.  p.  187.)  Some  of  these 
I  will  mention:  Mosen,  quanquam  humanorum  nulli  unquam,  divinorumque  pe- 
percerit  biasphemando,  plus  tamen  hinc  exccramur,  quod  Christum  Filium  Did 
diro  convitio  lacessivit :  utrum  volens,  an  casu,  tu  (Augustine)  videris.  [\\  82f).] 
-  -  Ait  enim  maledictum  esse  omnem,  qui  pendct  in  ligno.  He  also  most  con- 
tumeliously  assails  the  God  of  the  Hebrews,  (L.  xv.  c.  1.  p.  193,  194.):  Sordcnt 
ecclesios  nostrce  Testamenti  veteris  et  ejus  auctoris  munera.  -  -  Amator  vester 
et  pudoris  corruptor,  Hebrccorum  Deus,  diptychio  lapideo  suo  (referring  to  the 
two  tables  of  the  law,)  aurura  vobis  promittit  et  argentum,  ventris  saturitatem  et 
ten-am  Cananceorum.  -  -  Pauper  est,  egens  est,  ncc  ea  quidem  prgestare  potest, 
qua;  promittit.  Hebraeorum  Dei  et  nostra  admodum  diversa  conditio  est:  quia 
nee  ipse,  quae  promittit,  implere  potest,  et  nos  ea  fastidimus  accipere.  Super- 
bos  nos  adversus  bhinditias  ejus,  Christi  liberalitas  fecit.  And  he  expressly 
eays,  that  the  God  of  the  Jews  is  the  Demon,  (L.  xviii.  c.  1.  p.  220.)  :  Placet  ad 
ingluviem  Judaeorum  Daemonis  (neque  enim  Dei)  nunc  tauros,  nunc  arietea 
cultris  sternere?  But  I  forbear. — So  far  as  I  can  make  out  by  probable  con- 
jecture. Manes  supposed  the  God  of  the  Jews  to  be  the  Prince  of  evil  himself, 
and  the  Deities  of  other  nations  to  be  his  chiefs  and  captains  resident  in  the 
stars;  all  of  whom,  being  excessively  proud  by  nature,  used  various  arts  and 
impositions  to  procure  for  themselves  divine  worship  among  mortals. 

Not  content  with  these  evils  relating  to  the  whole  human  race,  the  Kino-  of 
darkness  and  his  associates  prevent,  as  far  as  they  can,  the  good  souls  of  indi- 
vidual men  from  performing  their  duty.  For,  by  the  five  bodily  senses,  and  by 
the  body  itself,  they  excite  and  strengthen  the  evil  soul,  which  in  all  men  is  as- 
sociated with  the  good  soul,  so  that,  burning  and  inflamed  with  lust,  it  over- 
comes and  weakens  and  oppresses  the  good  soul.  In  explaining  this  topic,  Se- 
cundinus  the  Manichaean  is  copious  and  eloquent,  in  an  Epistle  to  Augustine^ 
(in  the  0pp.  Augustini,  torn.  viii.  p.  370.)  and  he  strongly  urges  Augustine  to 
beware  of  the  snares  of  the  most  crafty  and  deceptive  Prince  of  evil:  Illumquo 
(divinae  personae)  a  nobis  repellant  atrocem  spiritum,  qui  hominibus  timorera 
immittit :  et  perfidiam,  ut  animas  avcrtat  ab  angusto  tramite  Salvatoris,  cujus 
omnis  impetus  per  illos  principes  funditur,  contra  quos  se  Apostolus  in  Ephesi- 
orum  epistola  certamen  subiisse  fatetur.  -  -  Ipse  enim  non  ignoras,  quam  pes- 
eimus  sit,  quamque  malignus,  quique  etiam  tanta  calliditate  adversus  fideles  et 
Bummos  viros  militat,  ut  et  Petrum  coegerit  sub  una  nocte  tertio  Dominum  ne- 
gare.  The  King  of  darkness  is  so  laborious,  because  he  wishes  not  to  have  hia 
empire  overthrown  or  destroyed. 

VOL.  11.  23 


838  Century  IIL—Sectloii  46. 

Lastly,  whatever  calamities  befall  our  world  or  its  inhabitants,  except  only 
the  earthquakes, — as  the  excessive  rains,  tiie  tempests,  the  thunders,  the  pesti- 
lences, the  wars, — all  proceed  from  the  Prince  of  evil,  and  his  associates,  resid- 
ing in  the  air  and  the  stars.  Tims  T'dus  of  Bostra,  (contra  Manichaeos,  L.  ii. 
p.  109.)  I  quote  only  the  Latin,  which  exactly  represents  the  Greek  :  Rursus 
[p.  827. J  est  aliiid  genus  eorum,  quae  Manichaeus  dementissimus  accusal,  terrae 
motum  dico  (Here  Titus  errs;  for  earthquakes  do  not  proceed  from  the  King 
of  evil,  but  from  Omophorus,  as  we  shall  soon  show,)  pestem,  fomem  ex  steriU- 
tate,  ex  locustis,  et  aliis  hujusmodi,  tanquam  a  principio  contrario  haec  proficis- 
cantur.  He  had  a  little  before  (p.  107.)  said  :  Bella  etiam  assignant  et  attribu- 
unt  nequitiae:  (tS  hmU,  that  is,  to  the  evil  principle.)  And  Tyrbo,  (in  the 
Acta  Archelai,  §  8.  p.  14.)  :  Princeps  ille  mngnus  producit  nebulas  ex  ae  ipso, 
uti  obscuret  in  ira  sua  omnem  mundum,  qui  cum  tribulatus  fuerit  (this  clause 
needs  illustration,  and  will  receive  it  further  on,)  sicut  homo  sudatpostlaborem, 
ita  et  hie  Princeps  sudat  ex  tribulatione  sua,  cujus  sudor  pluviae  sunt.  Sed  et 
messis  princeps  (one  of  the  Demons,  who  mows  down  men,  when  he  procures 
their  death  by  sending  diseases  and  pestilence,)  effundit  pestem  super  terram, 
ita,  ut  morte  afficiat  homines  -  -  incipit  excidere  radices  hominum,  et  cum  ex- 
cisae  fuerint  radices  eorum,  effieiturpestilentia,  et  ita  moriuntur.  Among  those 
evils,  which  the  Prince  of  darkness,  from  his  prison  or  residence,  prepares  for 
men,  is  icine.  For  often,  kindling  into  rage  and  fury,  he  lets  out  a  part  of  his 
bile ;  which  falls  on  the  earth,  and  produces  vines  and  grapes.  Augustine,  (de 
moribus  Manichaeorum,  L.  ii.  \  44.  torn.  i.  p.  545.) :  Quae  tanta  perveisio  est 
vinum  putare  fel  Principis  ienebrarum,  et  uvis  comedendis  non  parcere !  (See 
also  his  Book  de  Haeres.  c.  46.  p.  11,  &c.)  And  therefore,  the  more  perfect 
among  the  disciples  of  Manes,  or  those  called  the  Elect,  are  bound  to  abstain 
from  wine  altogether.     Of  this  we  shall  speak  in  the  proper  place. 

(4)  How  great  and  acute  a  philosopher  and  investigator  of  nature.  Ma- 
nes was,  can  scarcely  be  learned  more  clearly,  from  anything,  than  from  his 
doctrine  concerning  the  props  of  our  world  ;  w^iich  w\as  entirely  accordant  with 
the  fancies  of  the  Persians  and  other  Orientals,  and  was  derived,  I  suppose,  frou? 
the  schools  of  the  Magi.  This  discerning  man  thought  the  world  vvould  tumble, 
down,  if  it  were  not  propped  up.  He  therefore  placed  this  enormous  load  upoi? 
the  shoulders  of  an  immensely  great  angel,  whom  he  named  Omopliorus,  on  ac- 
count of  the  office  which  God  assigned  him  :  And,  lest  he  should  become  ex- 
hausted, and  should  stagger  under  his  immense  burden,  he  assigns  him  an  assis- 
tant, called  Splenditenens,  to  take  part  in  his  toil :  and  he,  weeping  and  groan- 
ing, holds  the  suspended  world  steady.  Says  Augustine,  (contra  Faustum,  L. 
XX.  c.  9.  p.  240.)  :  Vos  autem  primum  hominem  cum  quinque  dementis  bel- 
ligerentem,  et  Spiritum  potentem  de  captivis  corporibus  gentis  tenebrarum,  an 
potius  de  raembris  Dei  vestri  victis  atque  subjectis  mundum  fabricantem,  et 
Splendilenentem,  reliquias  eorundem  membrorum  Dei  vestri  in  manu  habentem, 
et  cetera  omnia  capta,  oppressa,  inquinata  plangentem,  et  Atlantem  maximum 
subter  humeris  suis  cum  eo  ferentem,  ne  totum  ille  fiitigatus  abjiciat — creditis 
et  colitis.  Also,  (L.  xv.  c.  5.  p.  196.) :  Ostende  nobis  moechos  tuos,  Splendi- 
[p.  828.]  tenentem  ponderatorem  et  Atlantem  laturarium.    Ilium  enim  dicis  ca- 


Formation  of  this  World.  339 

pita  clemontorum  tenerc,  mumUuiuiue  suspt-ndere,  istuni  autein  goiui  fixo, 
scapulis  validis,  subbajulare  tantain  niolem,  utique  no  illc  doficiat.  Ubi  sunt 
isti?  And  Tyrbo,  (in  the  Acta  Archelai,  p.  11.):  Est  autem  Chjwplwrus  (Aii- 
gusline  translates  the  name :  LaLurarius  in  Latin,)  deorsum,  id  est,  qui  earn 
(terrani)  portat  in  hutneris.  But  Omnphorus,  as  we  might  naturally  expect, 
sometimes  becomes  impatient  with  his  immense  burden,  and  therefore  trembles 
under  it:  And  this  is  the  cause  of  earthquakes.  Thus  proceeds  Tyrhn :  Et 
cum  laboraverit  porlans  intremiscit,  et  hajc  est  caussa  terra)  motus  propter  con- 
stitutnn)  tempus.  -  -  Quotiens  enim  eflicitnr  terra)  motus,  tremente  eo  ex  labore, 
vel  de  humero  in  humeriim  transferrente  pondus,  efiicitur.  A  perspicacious  in- 
terpreter truly,  of  the  mysteries  of  nature,  and  one  admirably  instructed  by  his 
Magian  teachers  !  And  hence  God  sent  his  Son  down  into  the  lower  parts  of 
the  earth,  to  cither  solace  or  reprimand  the  groaning,  sweating  Atlas  or  Omo- 
phorus :  Hac  dc  caussa  Filium  suum  raisit  benignus  Pater  de  finibus  suis  in 
cor  terra),  et  in  interiores  ejus  partes,  quo  ilium,  ut  par  est,  coerceret,  orrac  doT» 
Tjjv  7rpi<rmova-av  iTriri/uLiav  J'w,  as  it  is  in  the  Greek  of  Epiphanius.  These  are 
memorable  expressions !  For  it  appears  from  them  how  Manes  understood 
the  descent  of  Christ  into  hell.  He  supposed,  as  other  Christians  did,  that  t'he 
Son  of  God  actually  descended  into  the  infernal  regions.  But  by  that  language 
he  understood  the  interior  or  lower  parts  of  our  earth ;  and  the  object  of  this 
descent  was,  he  supposed,  to  reprimand  the  huge  carrier  on  whose  shoulders  the 
earth  rested. — These  two  pillars  of  earth  the  Manichaeans  religiously  honored 
with  hymns,  venerating  them  as  Deities.  According  to  Augustine^  (contra  Faus- 
tum,  L.  XV.  c.  5.  G.  7.  p.  197,  198.)  they  had  a  public  sacred  iiymn,  in  the  tumid 
and  inflated  style  of  the  Persians,  composed  by  Manes  himself,  and  called  a77ia- 
torium.  In  it  they  first  praised  God:  An  non  recordaris  ama/onuTn  canticum 
tuum,  ubi  describis  maximum  regnantera  regem,  sceptrigerum  perennem,  floreis 
coronis  cinctnm  et  fiicie  rutilantem  1  Next  followed  the  tw^elve  iEons ;  for  that 
was  their  number,  according  to  the  Manichaeans  :  Sequeris  cantando  et  adjungis 
duodecim  Sa?cula  floribus  convestita  et  canoribus  plena  et  in  faciem  Patris  flo- 
res  suos  jactantia : — Duodecim  magnos  quosdam  Deos  profiteris,  ternos  per 
quatuor  tractus,  quibus  ille  unus  circumcingltur.  Then  followed  the  other  citi- 
zens of  heaven,  the  angels,  inferior  to  the  iEons  :  Adjungis  etiam  innumerabiles 
regnicolas — et  angelorum  eohortes;  quae  omnia  non  condidisse  dicis  Deum,  sed 
de  sua  substantia  genuisse.  Lastly,  the  hymn  extolled,  with  very  high  praises, 
the  heroes  of  the  supreme  Deity,  and  among  them  Splendilenens  and  Omophorus : 
Et  Splendilenentem  magnum,  sex  vultus  et  ora  ferentem,  micantemque  lumine 
(from  this  light  or  splendor,  he  doubtless  derived  his  name  ;  q.  d.  S]ikndidus 
Angel  us,  qui  terram  tenet.)  et  alterum  regem  honoris,  Angelorum  ex-  [p.  829.] 
ercitibus  circumdatum  (this,  perhaps,  is  Christ)  et  alterum  adamantcm  lieroara 
belligerum,  dextra  hastem  tenentem  et  sinistra  clypeum  (this  undoubtedly  is  the 
Living  Spirit,  who  conquered  and  imprisoned  the  Prince  of  darkness,)  et  alte- 
rum gloriosum  Regem  tres  rotas  impellentem  ignis,  aquae  et  venti :  et  maxi- 
mum Atlantemy  mundum  ferentem  humeris  et  eum  genu  fixo,  brachiis  utrinquo 
secus  fulcientem. — This  worship,  paid  by  the  ]\Lanichacans  to  their  Omophorus 
-.md  Splenditenens,  is  a  sufficient  confutation  of  the  ingenious  Beausobrc ;  \n1io, 


340  Century  III— Section  46. 

perceiving  this  fable  of  a  world-bearer,  to  be  too  silly  to  come  from  a  phllosoplier 
of  even  moderate  abilities,  and  esteeming  Manes  a  great  philosopher, — maintains 
that  it  is  an  allegory.  (Vol.  il.  p.  370.)  And  it  is  the  custom  of  this  erudite  man, 
whenever  he  cannot  otherwise  excuse  or  justify  Manes,  to  depart  from  the  lite- 
ral interpretation,  and  direct  his  readers  to  believe,  that  Manes  wrapped  up 
plain  and  sober  truths  in  the  vestments  of  figures  and  metaphors.  He  there- 
fore thinks,  Omophorus  must  be  an  Angel  holding  up  the  world,  not  with  his 
shoulders,  but  by  some  unknown  force;  and  Spkndilenens,  he  supposes,  to  be 
the  air  which  encompasses  the  earth.  But  who  can  believe  that  the  Manichaeans 
sang  the  praises  of  the  air  in  their  assemblies ;  not  to  mention  many  other 
things,  which  will  occur  to  the  reader  without  my  stating  them  ?  And  if  Omo- 
phorus^ carrying  the  world  on  his  shoulders  is  a  mere  metaphor,  what  becomes 
of  the  cause  of  earthquakes,  as  taught  by  the  Manichaeans  ?  I  may  add,  that 
the  Manichaeans  deny  that  their  master  concealed  the  truth  under  images  and 
fables  ;  and  they  place  it  among  his  chief  excellencies,  that  he  gives  us  the  know- 
ledge of  divine  things  nakedly  and  in  simple  language.  Says  Avgusline,  (con- 
tra Faustum,  L.  XV.  c.  5.  p.  197,)  :  Tibi  pra3cipue  laudari  Manichaeus  non  ob 
aliud  solet,  nisi  quod  romotis  figurarum  integumentis,  ipse  lib!  veritatem  nudara 
et  propriam  loqueretur.  And  (c.  6.  p.  197.)  ;  Tu  vero  praecipue  Manichaeum  ob 
hoc  praedicas  -  -  quod  flguris  antiquorum  apertis  et  suis  narrationibus  ac  dis- 
putationibus  evidenti  luce  prolatis,  nullo  se  occultaret  aenigmate.  Addis  earn 
praesumptionis  hujus  causam,  quod  videlicet  antiqui,  ut  figuras  hujusmodi  dicc- 
rint,  sciebant,  istum  postea  venturum,  per  quern  cuncta  manifestarentur,  iste  au- 
tem.qui  sciret,  post  se  neminem  adfuturum,  sententias  suas  nullis  allegoricis 
ambagibus  texeret.  The  Manichaean  community  were  instructed,  therefore,  to 
understand  all  the  doctrines  of  their  master  according  to  the  literal  and  proper 
sense  of  the  words. 

§  XLVII.  The  Mission  and  Offices  of  Christ.  The  world  be- 
ing framed  and  adjusted,  the  grand  aim  of  the  supreme  Deitj 
was,  first^  to  liberate  from  bondage,  and  restore  to  the  world  of 
light,  those  particles  of  his  own  nature,  or  of  eternal  light,  that  is, 
[p.  830.]  the  rational  souls,  which  had  become  inclosed  in  bodies ; 
and  then,  gradually  to  extract  from  depraved  matter,  and  recover 
to  their  former  happy  state,  those  shreds  of  the  celestial  elements 
which  were  dispersed  among  all  the  depraved  matter ;  and  lastly, 
to  press  out  and  set  free,  the  living  and  sentient  soul,  the  son  of 
the  First  Man,  which  was  absorbed  in  the  bodies  of  the  Prince 
of  darkness  and  his  fellow  warriors.  To  hasten  the  return  of 
souls  to  the  world  of  light,  as  much  as  possible,  their  heavenly 
Father  had  frequently  sent  among  mankind  angels  and  very 
holy  men,  actuated  by  himself,  to  instruct  men  both  orally  and 
by  writings,  and  to  show  them  the  way  of  return  to  God  when 
released  from  the  body.    But  the  work  went  on  too  slowly ;  for 


Mission  and  Offices  of  Christ.  841 

the  Prince  of  darkness,  by  liis  ministers  and  satellites,  by  tlie  body 
and  its  senses,  and  by  the  depraved  soul,  impeded  the  divine 
plans,  and  ensnared  the  good  souls.  And,  in  the  meantime, 
Omophorus  became  weary  of  his  burden,  and  earnestly  impor- 
tuned for  an  end  of  his  toil.  And,  therefore,  to  accelerate  the 
recover}^  of  the  numerous  souls  unhappily  inclosed  in  bodies,  God 
directed  Christ,  his  Son,  to  descend  from  his  residence  in  the  sun 
to  this  lower  world.  And  he,  having  assumed  a  human  form,  but 
without  uniting  himself  to  a  body  or  to  human  nature,  appeared 
among  the  Jews  ;  and  he,  by  his  words  and  deeds,  made  known 
to  the  captive  intelligences  the  way  of  escape  from  their  thral- 
dom :  and,  lest  mortals  should  not  place  confidence  in  him,  he 
demonstrated  his  divinity  by  the  most  signal  miracles.  But  the 
Prince  of  darkness,  fearing  the  subversion  of  his  empire,  excited 
the  Jews,  his  most  loyal  subjects,  to  seize  and  crucify  him.  Yet 
Christ  did  not  really  endure  that  punishment,  but  only  seemed 
to  men  to  do  so.  For,  as  he  had  no  body,  and  only  assumed  the 
appearance  of  a  man,  he  could  neither  be  seized,  nor  crucified, 
nor  die  at  all.  Yet  Christ  feigned  death,  in  order  that,  by  this 
seeming  example,  he  might  teach  men,  or  the  good  souls  lodged 
in  bodies,  that  the  body  and  the  evil  soul  resident  in  the  body, 
should  be  tortured,  chastised,  and  mortified,  if  they  would  obtain 
freedom  and  salvation.  When  he  had  accomplished  his  mission, 
Christ  returned  to  his  residence  in  the  sun,  having  directed  his 
Apostles  to  difi*use  his  religion  among  mankind.  These  ambassa- 
dors of  Christ,  although  they  did  immense  good  to  men,  and  [p.  831.] 
greatly  weakened  the  empire  of  the  Prince  of  darkness,  yet  did 
not  make  known  that  full  and  perfect  wisdom  which  is  neces- 
sary for  the  souls  that  long  for  salvation  ;  for  Christ  did  not  im- 
part to  them  the  full  knowledge  of  the  truth.  But,  as  he  was 
departing,  he  promised  to  send  forth  in  due  time  a  greater  and 
more  holy  Apostle,  whom  he  named  the  Paraclete  ;  who  should 
add  to  his  precepts  such  things  as  men  at  that  time  were  not  able 
to  receive  and  digest,  and  should  dissipate  all  errors  in  regard  to 
divine  things.  That  Paraclete  came,  in  the  person  of  Manes  the 
Persian  ;  and  he,  by  command  of  Christ,  expounded  clearly  and 
perfectly,  and  without  figures  and  enigmas,  the  whole  way  of 
salvation  for  toiling  and  suifering  souls.(') 

(1)  Some  things  here  stated,  have  already  been  sufBciently  elucidated  and 


342  Century  III.— Section  47. 

confirmed,  and  tliey  are  here  repeated  only  to  make  the  connection  of  the 
whole  system  the  more  evident.  Therefore,  passing  by  these,  I  shall  ntiw 
explain  and  demonstrate  only  those  things  which  need  confirmation. — I  be- 
gin with  the  causes  of  Christ's  mission  to  men.  According  to  the  opinion 
of  the  Manicha3ans,  there  were  two  causes  of  his  advent:  the  jZrsMvaf--.  the 
acceleration  of  the  deliverance  of  the  souls  shut  up  in  material  bodies  by  the 
Prince  of  darkness :  and  the  second  was,  the  impatience  of  Omophoriis,  who 
propped  up  the  world :  for  he,  finding  himself  oppressed  by  the  immense  load, 
longed  for  the  termination  of  his  toil,  and  often  besought  God  for  relief.  Both 
these  causes  are  mentioned  by  Tyrbo,  (in  the  Acta  Archelai,  1}  8.  p.  12.) :  Cum  au- 
tem  vidissct  Pater  vivens  nfHigi  animam  in  corpore,  quia  est  miserator  et  rnisericors, 
misit  Filium  suum  dilectum  ad  sjiiutem  :  hac  enim  caussa,  et  propter  Omophoriim 
(here  you  see  the  second  cause,)  misit  eum.  Of  theirs/  cause,  the  Manichaans 
often  speak  magnificently,  and  very  nearly  in  the  language  of  the  Catholics : 
which  might  induce  one  not  familiar  with  these  matters,  to  suppose  there  was 
little  difierence  of  opinion  between  Christians  and  Manicha^ans,  as  to  the  object 
of  Christ's  advent  among  men  ;  whereas,  there  was  a  vast  difference,  as  will  be 
hereafter  shown.  For  the  causes  above  stated,  therefore,  the  Son  of  God  de- 
scended from  the  sun  into  our  world,  inclosed  indeed  in  the  form  and  appear- 
ance of  a  human  body,  but  inti.rely  separate  and  removed  from  any  kind  of  body 
or  matter.  Manes  could  not  possibly  have  assigned  to  the  Son  of  God  a  real 
body,  or  one  composed  of  matter:  for  he  supposed  the  matter  of  all  bodies  to 
belong  to  the  world  of  darkness,  and  to  be  the  seat  and  source  of  all  wicked- 
ness and  lust.  Says  Tyrbo,  (1.  c.  p.  12.) :  Et  veniens  Filius  transformavit  se  in 
speciem  hominis,  et  apparebat  quidem  hominibus  ut  homo,  cum  non  essel  JiomOt 
et  homines  putaverunt  eum  natum  esse.  But  we  will  let  Manes  himself  speak, 
[p.  832.]  In  his  Epistle  to  Zebena,  (in  Fahricius'  Biblioth.  Gra3ca,  vol.  v.  p.  284.)  I 
cite  only  the  Latin  :  Lux  (Christus)  non  attigit  carnis  essentiam,  sed  similitudine  et 
Jigura  carnis  {ofji.oico/u.aTi  xut  a-^yiy-ari  a-apuds  ia-x.ida-b-n)  ne  comprehenderetur  et 
corrumperetur.  Quomodo  ergo  passa  essef?  In  his  Epistle  io  Odda,  (L  c. 
p.  285.)  ;  Quomoda  Galilaei  (i.  e.  the  Catholic  Christians)  duas  naturas  nomi- 
nant  atque  in  Christo  esse  affirmant,  effuse  ridcamus :  nesciunt  enim  naturam 
lucis  materiae  alii  non  misceri,  («  cva-ia  roZ  purd;  'nifA  hu  fAtywrai  iixji,)  sed 
sincera  est  ac  simplex,  neque  uniri  alteri  naturae  potest,  licet  illi  conjungi  vide- 
atur.  Nothing  could  be  more  evident! — Therefore,  if  some  minor  parties  among 
the  jManichaeans,  as  some  of  the  ancients  have  stated,  assigned  to  Christ  either 
a  body  like  ours,  or  an  ethcrial  one,  they  departed  entirely  from  the  opinions  of 
their  master,  and  abandoned  the  first  principles  of  his  system.  Holding  this 
opinion  of  Christ  the  Manichaeans  of  course  rejected  and  denied  all  that  the 
sacred  history  tells  us  of  his  birth  from  ]Mary,  of  his  genealogy  and  descent 
from  David,  and  of  his  childhood  and  education.  They  declared  these  to  be 
mere  fables,  tacked  on  to  the  history  of  Jesus  Christ  by  some  Jews.  They  said, 
it  would  be  altogether  unbecoming  the  majesty  of  the  Son  of  God,  to  come  into 
the  world  from  the  womb  of  a  virgin  ;  and  that  his  divine  and  celestial  nature 
would  absolutely  resist  an  assumption  of  humanity.  Manes  himself,  (in  the 
Acta  Archelai^  \  47.  p.  85.  of  the  edition  of  Zaccagni,  which  we  always  use,) 


JUssion  and  Offices  of  Christ.  S^,^ 

says:  Absit  ut  Domimim  nostrum  Josiim  Christum  per  naturalia  pudenda  muli- 
cris  descetidisse  I'oiiHti'ar :  ipse  enim  testimonium  dat,  quia  de  sinibus  Patris 
(loceiidit.  -  -  Sunt  innumeratestimonia  iiujuscemodi,  quae  indicant,  eum  venisso 
et  non  natum  esse.  'I'iien  follows  a  dis^cussion  of  Manes,  which  is  too  lonrr  to 
be  conveniently  transcribed,  in  Mhich  he  tries  to  prove  from  various  expressions 
in  the  New  Testament,  that  Christ  was  not  born,  and  that  he  had  not  a  body. 
l)ut  I  will  trascribe  another  passage,  which  will  show,  that  Mcmes  did  not  be- 
lieve the  ()apUs7n  of  Christ ;  (h  50.  p.  91.)  :  Milii  pium  videtur  dicere,  quod  nihil 
eguerit  Filius  Dei  in  eo,  quod  adventus  ejus  procuratur  ad  terras,  neque  opus 
lui-buerit  columba,  neque  baplismale,  neque  matre,  neque  fratribus,  fortasse  ne- 
que patrc  (what  follows  shows,  that  fater  here  does  not  mean  a  natural  father, 
but  a  step-father  or  a  foster-fiither,)  qui  ei  secundum  te  (Archelae)  fuit  Joseph, 
sed  totus  ille  ipse  descendens,  semetipsum  in  quocunque  voluit  transformavit  in 
homincm,  eo  pacto,  quo  Paulus  dicit,  quia  {(r^fitAATiy)  habitu  repertus  est  ut  ho- 
mo. -  -  Quando  voluit  hunc  hominem  rursum  transformavit  in  speciem  solis  ac 
vultum  :  (as  on  mount  Tabor.)  All  Manichaean  writers,  whose  works  have 
re:iehed  us,  uniformly  repeat  the  opinions  and  arguments  of  their  master  on  this 
subject.  Foriunalus,  (in  his  first  Dispute  with  Augustine,  in  the  0pp.  August. 
tom.  viii,  p.  73.)  says :  Salvatorem  Christum  credimus  de  ccelo  venisse.  Vos  se- 
cundum carmen  asseritis  ex  semine  David,  cum  praedicetur  ex  virgine  [p.  833.] 
natus  esse,  et  Filius  Dei  magnificetur.  Fieri  autem  non  potest,  nisi  ut  quod  de 
spiritu  est,  spiritus  habeatur,  et  quod  de  carne  est,  caro  intelligatur.  Contra 
quod  est  ipsa  auctoritas  Evangelii,  qua  dicitur,  quod  caro  et  sanguis  regnum  Dei 
non  possibebunt.  Faustus,  the  Manichaean,  in  many  passages,  disputes  largely 
and  fiercely,  against  those  who  tiiink  that  Christ  was  born  and  had  a  body.  See 
Lib.  ii.  iii.  vii.  xi.  xxiii.  xxix.  Among  many  other  things,  he  says,  (L.  xxiii.  c.  2 
p.  300.)  :  Symbolum  vestrum  ita  se  habet,  ut  credatis  in  Jesum  Christum,  Fili- 
um  Dei,  qui  sit  natus  ex  Maria  virgine  ;  vestrum  ergo  de  Maria  accipere  Filium 
Dei,  nostrum  ex  Deo.  -  -  De  hac  sententia  nemo  nos  prorsus  dejiciet  ex  Deo 
accipiendi  Filium  Dei,  non  ex  utcro  mulieris  natum.  Secundinus,  a  Mnnichaean 
not  destitute  of  genius,  in  his  Epistle  to  Augustine,  (p.  372.)  says  ;  Desine  qua}- 
80  utero  claudere  Christum,  ne  ipse  rursum  utero  conclndaris.  Desine  duas 
naturas  facere  unam,  quia  appropinquat  Domini  judicium.  Those  Gnostics,  who 
having  similar  views  of  the  nature  of  matter  with  Manes,  likewise  denied  to 
Christ  a  body  and  humanity,  still  admitted,  that  in  the  opinion  of  men,  or  in 
appearance,  he  was  born  of  Mary,  But  the  Manichccans  had  such  abhorrence 
of  the  idea  that  Ciirist  was  born,  that  they  would  not  even  concede  so  much. 
Faustus,  indeed,  (L.  xxix.  c.  1.  p.  313.)  seems  not  very  averse  from  the  opinion, 
which  makes  Christ  to  have  been  aiiparently  born.  lie  says :  Vos  pro  certo 
puerperiura  fuisse  (Christun))  creditis  et  utero  muliebri  portatum.  Aut  si  ita 
non  est,  fatenmini  vos  quia  hoc  etiam  imaginarie  sit  factum,  ut  videretur  natus, 
et  omnis  nobis  erit  profligata  contentio.  But  he  only,  among  the  Manicha^ans, 
60  thought :  the  rest  thought  very  diflerently.  For  thus  Augustine  replies  to 
Faustus:  Quaero  ab  els,  si  nostra  contentio  terminatur,  cum  hoc  dixerimus,  cur 
hoc  ipsi  non  dicunt?  Cur  ipsi  mortem  non  veram,  sed  imaginariam  Chri^yti  af- 
firmant :  nativitatem  autem  non  saltern  talem,  sed  prorsus  m<JlMP^  dicere  dele- 


344  Century  III.— Section  47. 

g-erunt?  -  -  An  quia  mortem  simulare  honestum  (st,  nativitatera  autem  etiam 
simulare  turpe  est  ?  Cur  ergo  nos  hortatur  hoc  confiteri,  quo  possit  nostra 
contentio  profligari  ?  And  again,  (contra  Faustum  L.  xxxi.  c.  6.  p.  318.)  Aw- 
gusline  ?ays  :  Mors  Christi  visa  vobis  est  vel  fallax  et  simulata  prsedicanda :  at 
non  etiam  nativitas.  -  -  In  nativitatc  enim  quia  ligari  Deum  vestrum  creditis, 
banc  nee  saltern  fallaciter  imaginatum  Christum  creditis:  Manes  therefore 
would  say,  that  Christ  descending  suddenly  from  heaven,  appeared  among  the 
Jews,  in  the  form  of  a  man ;  but  he  was  without  father,  without  mother,  with- 
out relatives,  without  brethren,  without  a  body  ;  and  all  that  occurs  in  the  Gos- 
pels contradictory  to  these  assertions,  as  also  the  history  of  his  baptism,  he 
would  place  among  Jewish  fables.  Says  Fausius,  (L.  xxxii.  c.  7.  p.  322.)  : 
Nos  de  Testamcnto  novo  sola  accipimus  ea,  qua3  in  honorem  et  laudem  Filii 
mnjestatis  dicta  comperimus,  dissimulamus  cetera  -  -  -  dico  autem  hoc  ipsum  (a) 
[p.  834.]  natum  ex  focminu  turpiter,  (b)  circumcisum  Judnice,  (c)  sacrificasse 
gentiliter,  (d)  baptizatum  humiliter,  (e)  circuraductum  a  Diabolo  per  deserta  et 
ab  eo  tentatum  quam  miserrime.  His  igitur  exceptis,  et  si  quid  ei  ab  scriptori- 
bus  ex  Testamento  vetere  falsa  sub  testificatione  injectum  est:  credimua 
cetera. — The  reason  why  Christ  showed  himself  among  the  Jews  especially, 
and  not  among  other  nations,  was,  undoubtedly,  that  the  Jews,  as  Manes  sup- 
posed, worshipped  the  Prince  of  darkness  himself  instead  of  God,  while  the 
other  nations  only  served  his  captains  and  fellow  warriors.  The  King  of  dark- 
ness, therefore,  had  established  the  seat  of  his  empire  in  Palestine. 

He  who  is  destitute  of  a  body,  has  no  need  of  food  or  drink,  or  of  sleep  and 
rest.  ManeSy  therefere,  could  not  believe,  that  Christ  really  ate,  drank,  slept, 
and  rested :  but  all  these  he  pretended  to  do,  that  the  Jews  might  not  doubt 
his  humanity.  Says  Fausius,  (L.  xxvi.  c.  1.  p.  307.)  :  Jesus  ab  initio  sumpta 
hominis  similitudine,  omnes  huma?icc  condilionis  simulacit  ajfectus  :  Sic  ab  re 
non  erat,  si  in  fine  quoque  consignandse  ceconoraias  gratia  fuit  visus  et  mori. 
But  the  miracles  ascribed  to  him,  Fausius  admitted  to  be  real,  (L.  xxv.  c.  2. 
p.  307.)  :  Nam  et  coecum  a  nativitate  lumen  videre  natura  non  sinit,  quod  tamen 
Jesus  potenter  operatus  videtur  erga  hujus  generis  coecos  -  -  manum  aridam 
sanasse,  vocem  ac  verbum  privatis  his  per  naturara  redonasse,  mortuis  et  in  ta- 
bem  jam  resolutis  corporibas  compage  reddita  vitalem  redintegrasse  spiritum, 
quern  non  ad  stuporem  adducat  ?  -  -  Quoe  tamen  omnia  nos  communiter  facta 
ab  eodem  credimus  Christiani,  non  considerationc  jam  naturae,  sed  potestatis 
tantum  et  virtutis  Dei.  It  is  strange,  that  the  Manichseans  could  believe  these 
miracles  real.  For  they  were  all  wrought  upon  bodies :  and  bodies,  in  their 
estimation,  are  the  fabrications  of  the  evil  Demon ;  and  they  belong  to  the 
world  of  darkness,  because  they  consist  of  gross  concrete  matter.  And  there- 
fore, the  Son  of  God,  who  had  come  to  destroy  bodies,  those  works  of  the 
Prince  of  darkness,  and  to  liberate  souls  from  their  prisons,  actually  restored 
and  healed  these  vicious  bodies,  so  that  the  unhappy  souls  might  be  the  longer 
detained  in  them  ;  and  thus  the  Light  bestowed  labor  on  the  darkness,  and  re- 
nevved,  arranged,  and  preserved  from  destruction  evil  matter,  tlie  possession  of 
his  enemy.  Who  that  embraces  Manicha3an  views,  could  easily  believe  this? 
And  still  more  incredible  siiould  it  be,  to  a  Manichsean,  that  Christ  restored  the 


Mission  and  Offices  of  Christ.  345 

dead  to  life.  For  death,  according  to  the  opinion  of  Manes,  was  the  release  of 
a  soul  or  a  particle  of  the  divine  nature,  from  its  gloomy  and  severe  imprison- 
ment.  There  is  an  Epistle  of  Augustine  to  a  certain  Manichajan  presbyter, 
(Epist.  Ixxi.v.  0pp.  torn.  ii.  p.  141.  edit.  Benedict.)  from  which  it  appears,  that 
the  Manichseans  despised  death.  He  says  :  iJene,  quia  non  times  mortem.  And 
he  subjoins  the  cause  they  assigned,  for  this  their  contempt  of  death  :  Quia 
mors  est,  quod  adjungis  de  vestro,  separatio  boni  a  male.  This  Ma-  [p.  83").] 
nichrean  reasoned  most  correctly,  from  the  opinions  of  his  master.  Now  who 
could  easily  persuade  himself,  that  the  Son  of  God  would,  by  recalling  the  dead 
to  life,  again  connect  the  good  and  divine  when  separated  from  the  evil,  witli  the 
evil  work  of  his  enemy  ?  This  is  so  incongruous  with  the  object  for  which  tho 
Son  of  God  came  among  men,  that  nothing  could  be  more  so.  And  yet  the 
Manichseans,  as  Faustus  states  most  explicitly,  did  believe  the  miracles  of 
Christ ;  that  is,  although  at  the  first  rise  of  the  sect,  they  disagreed  on  this  as 
well  as  other  points. — In  like  manner,  the  Manichseans  believed,  that  the  dis- 
courses ascribed  to  Christ  by  his  biographers,  were  really  uttered  by  him  :  and 
in  those  discourses,  they  thought  they  discovered  their  own  primary  doctrine  of 
two  first  principles  of  all  things.  Thus  Faustus,  (L.  xxxii.  c.  7.  p.  322.)  says: 
Praecepta  salutaria  Christi,  tuni  parabolas,  cunctumque  sermonem  deificum,  qui 
maxime  duarum  praeferens  naturarum  (i.  e.  of  two  first  principles)  discretionem, 
ipsius  esse  non  venit  in  dubiura. 

Now,  when  the  Prince  of  darkness  saw  those  miracles  of  Christ,  and  heard 
his  discourses,  and  perceived  that  Christ  intended  to  subvert  his  empire,  and  to 
abolish  the  law  which  the  Prince  had  enacted  through  Moses,  he  formed  the 
purpose  of  destroying  him.  He  therefore  instigated  the  Jews,  the  most  faithful 
subjects  over  whom  he  reigned,  to  seize  Christ  and  nail  him  to  the  cross.  Se- 
cundinus,  a  Manichaean,  (in  his  Epistle  to  Augustine,  §  4.  p.  370.)  says :  Ipse 
non  ignoras,  quam  audacter  (the  Lord  of  the  world  of  darkness)  illud  molitua 
sit,  ut  Domino  -  -  Iscariotem  rapuerit,  et  ut  ad  ultimum  crucis  supplicium  veni- 
retur:  in  perniciem  ipsius  Scribas,  Pharisaeosque  accenderit,  ut  Barrabam  di- 
mitii  clamarent  et  Jesum  crucifigi.  The  Son  of  God  was  therefore  seized  by 
the  Jews,  subjected  to  punishment,  nailed  to  a  cross,  and  at  length  died ;  yet 
none  of  these  things  actually  occurred,  but  the  whole  was  feigned.  For  the 
divine  Light,  being  destitute  of  a  body  and  of  all  matter,  could  not  be  seized, 
nor  could  he  die ;  only  the  shadow  of  a  body  of  Christ,  therefore,  appeared  to 
endure  all  these  things.  Says  Manes,  (Epistle  to  Zehena,  in  the  Biblioth. 
Graeca  o^  Fabricius,  vol.  v.  p.  284.)  :  "A;tx»  ?i/V/c  ova  d7ro3-v«'crx«;  xut  tkiu  a-cf^ndi 

Iv   a-ravfiiVTai.      Miay    cuv   ifxiivt   T«v    pv<nv   xut    hipynav   to   pais   f^hSlv   -Tra^oZo-av  t» 

inio-KtcLTfAaTi  THf  capKoi  lux.  i;)(^cv'Tt  (pva-iv  Kparov/nivuv.  Simplex  natura  non  mori- 
fur,  et  umbra  carnis  non  crucifigitur.  Perpetuo  igitur  unam  naturam  et  un:im 
operalionein  Lux  (the  Son  of  God,  consisting  of  a  mass  of  divine  light)  habere 
perseveravit  nihil  patientem  ab  umbra  carnis,  quae  naturam  (simpliccm)  neuti- 
quam  comprehensam  tenet.  So,  also,  in  his  Epistola  fundamenti,  (apud  Eiio- 
dium.  Libro  de  fide,  c.  28.  in  0pp.  Augustini,  torn  viii.  Append,  p.  29.)  Manes 
says:  Inimicus  quippe,  qui  eundem  Salvatorem  justorum  patrem  crucifixisse  ae 
speravit,  ipse  est  crucifixus,  (metaphorically,  not  literally) :  quo  ten)pore  aliud 


340  Century  III.— -Section  47. 

actum  est,  atque  aliud  ostensum.  And  Faushis,  (L.  xiv.  c.  1.  p.  187.)  says: 
[p.  836.]  Mosen  execmmur,  quod  Christum,  Filium  Dei,  qui  nostrao  snluHs  caussa 
pependit  in  ligno,  diro  devotionis  convieio  lacessivit — dieens  maladictum  esse 
omnem,  qui  pendet  in  liirno.  (His  reasoning  is  very  silly,  and  inconsistent  with 
his  own  doctrines;  and  it  is  brought  forward  only  to  calumniate  Moses.  For 
Faustus  himself  did  not  believe  that  Christ  hung  on  the  tree,  but  only  his 
shadow.)  So,  also,  (L.  xxix.  c.  1.  p.  313.)  he  says  expressly:  Denique  et  noa 
specietenus  passum,  nee  vere  mortuum  confitemur.  And,  (L.  xxvi.  c.  2.  p.  308.)- 
Nobis  nee  Jesus  mortuus  est,  nee  immortalis  Elias.  See  also  Alexander  of  Ly- 
copolis,  (contra  Manichaeos,  p.  19.)  where  he  says:  'O  M^vtxaioi  i'tS-aa-Kn  Trifi 
TowTcy  iia-Ttp  dS'vvdrcv  ovtos  tKtivov  rovro  iroulv,  id  est,  Trct^ilv.  ManichffiUS  do- 
cet,  fieri  id  nullo  modo  posse,  ut  Christus  vere  patiatur.  Augustine,  (contra 
Faustum,  L.  xxix.  c.  2.  p.  314.):  Passionem  mortemque  ejus  specietenus  factara 
et  fallaeiter  dicitis  adumbratum,  ut  mori  videretur,  qui  non  moriebatur. — Christ 
had  weighty  reasons  for  feignii.g  death,  and  the  sufferings  and  trials  that  pre- 
ceded it.  The  first  was,  to  teach  men  the  wretched  state  of  souls  inclosed  in 
bodies.  For  a  soul  bound  to  a  body,  is,  as  it  were,  nailed  to  a  cross,  and 
dreadfully  wounded.  Fortunatus,  (in  his  first  dispute  with  Augustine,  p.  69,  70,): 
Hoc  ergo  sentimus  de  nobis,  quod  et  de  Christo,  qui  cum  in  forma  Dei  esset 
constitutus,  factus  est  subditus  usque  ad  mortem,  ut  similitudinem  animarum 
noslrarum  ostenderet.  -  -  Si  fait  Christus  in  passione  et  morte,  et  nos:  si  vo- 
luntate  Patris  descendit  in  passionem  et  mortem,  et  nos.  And  Faustus,  (L.  xxxii. 
c.  7.  p.  322.):  Credimus  praacipue  crucis  Christi  fixionem  mysticam,  qua  nostrse 
anima3  passionis  monstrantur  vulnera.  Alexander  of  Lycopolis,  (contra  Mani- 
chaeos, p.  19.)  quoting  from  a  book  of  Manes  on  this  subject,  says,  that  Christ 

was  crucified,  to  exhibit  to  men:  t«v  S'vva/hiv  tJjv  S-a'av  ev^puoerd-ui,  hitrraupuT-d-At 

tJi  Sx«.  divinam  virtutem,  id  est,  animam  in  materiam  immersam  et  in  materia 
crucifixam  esse. — The  second  reason  for  Christ's  feigning  death,  was,  to  teach 
men  to  despise  death,  or  to  show  them  that  death  is  no  evil,  but  a  boon,  and 
therefore  should  be  endured  with  firmness.  Augustine,  (contra  Faustum, 
L.  XXX.  c.  6.  p.  318.):  Mortem  tanquam  separationem  anima?,  id  est,  naturae 
Dei  vestri  a  corpore  iniraicorum  ejus,  hoc  est,  a  figmento  Diaboli,  praedicatis  at- 
que  laudatis:  ac  per  hoc  rem  dignam  fuisse  credidistis,  quam  Christus  etsi  non 
moriens,  tamen  mortem  simulans,  commendaret. — Lastly,  by  feigning  death, 
Christ  designed  to  admonish  souls,  that  they  must  not  spare  the  body,  if  they 
wish  to  be  saved;  but  must  crucify  the  flesh  and  all  its  lusts,  or  wholly  extir- 
pate and  slay  them.  Alexander  of  Lycopolis,  (contra  Manichaeos,  p.  19.)  says: 
Manes  wrote,  that  Christ  suffered  crucifixion, «/?  t-TiS'uyfAit,  to  set  men  an  example 
[p.  837.1/or  their  imitation.  These  reasons  for  Christ'sfeigiiing  death,  are  manifestly 
futile;  and,  I  believe.  Manes  would  as  readily  have  denied  the  death  of  Christ, 
as  he  did  hia  birth,  if  he  could  have  done  it :  but  there  was  so  much  evidence  of 
his  death  and  resurrection,  that  he  dared  not  deny  them;  and  therefore,  he 
must  resort  to  some  fanciful  explanation,  that  he  might  not  appear  to  avoid  the 
subject.  Faustus  himself,  (L.  xxix.  c.  1.  p.  313.)  seems  to  place  little  reliance 
on  these  reasons:  Nos  passionis  Christi  rationem  aliquam  reddimus  et  prohahi- 
Um:  (and  therefore  not  solid,  sufiicient,  and  satisfactory.)     Manes  could  not 


Missioti  and  Offices  of   Christ.  347 

possibly  deny  either  the  dcatli  or  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  He  thcroforc 
taught,  that  Christ  was  laid  in  the  grave,  returned  from  the  tomb  to  his  disc-ipU-s, 
showed  them  the  scars  on  his  body,  and  perhaps  ascended  to  iieaven  before 
their  eyes.  But  all  these,  as  well  as  his  death,  were  only  imaginary,  and  emble- 
matic of  the  return  of  a  soul  to  its  primeval  state.  Says  Fortunalus  the  Mani- 
chasan,  (in  his  first  Dispute  with  Augustine,  p.  70.) :  Quemadmodum  Christus 
in  se  mortis  similitudiiiem  ostendit,  et  se  a  Patre  esse  de  medio  mortuorum  re- 
suscitatum :  eo  modo  sentimus  et  de  animis  nostris  futurum,  quod  per  ipsum 
poterimus  ab  hac  morte  liberari.  And  Augustine,  (de  Ilceres.  e.  46.  p.  13.): 
Alhrmnnt  (iManichaji)  Christum  non  fuisse  in  carne  vera,  sed  simulatam  spcciem 
carnis  ludificandis  humanis  sensibus  pra^buisse,  uti  non  solum  mortem,  verum 
etiain  resurrectionem  similiter  mentiretur.  And,  (contra  Faustum,  L.  x.xix.  c.  2. 
p.  313.):  Ex  quo  fit,  ut  ejus  quoque  resurrectionem  umbraticam,  imaginariam, 
fallacemque  dicatis :  neque  enim  ejus,  qui  non  vere  mortuus  est,  vera  esse  resur- 
rectio  potest.  Ita  fit,  ut  et  cicatrices  discipulis  dubitantibus  fiilsas  ostenderit, 
nee  Thomas  veritate  confirmatus,  sed  fallacia  deceptus  clamarit,  Dominus  mens, 
et  Deus  mens:  et  tamen  persuadere  conamini,  linqua  vos  loqui  verum,  cum 
Christum  dicatis  toto  corpore  fuisse  mentitum. — This  pious  fraud  of  Christ,  in 
exhibiting  to  men  the  appearance  of  a  body  instead  of  a  real  body,  had  reference 
not  only  to  the  Jews,  but  also  to  his  own  Apostles;  for  they  had  no  doubt,  that 
Christ  really  died,  and  actually  arose  from  the  dead.  And  Manes,  by  the  com- 
mand and  inspiration  of  God,  first  brought  the  truth  to  light. 

As  the  Manichfcans  held  the  opinions  described,  respecting  Christ,  they 
could  not  possibly  observe  all  the  festal  days  consecrated  by  Christians  to  the 
memory  of  the  Savior;  and  those,  which  their  principles  allowed  them  to  ob- 
serve, they  of  necessity  celebrated  in  a  different  manner  from  other  Christians. 
In  the  first  place,  the  day  commemorative  of  the  nativity  of  Christ,  they  abso- 
lutely could  not  observe.  For  they  so  strenuously  denied  the  birth  of  Christ, 
as  not  even  to  concede  to  him  an  apparent  birth.  Neither  could  they  conse- 
crate the  day,  on  which  the  Oriental  Christians  commemorated  his  baptism.  For 
they  denied  that  Christ  was  baptized.  But  as  they  believed  that  Christ  was 
apparently  crucified  and  died,  they  could  celebrate  the  time  of  his  death ;  [p.  838.] 
and  they  actually  did  religiously  observe  it,  though  with  little  display  or  so- 
lemnity. The  anniversary  of  the  execution  of  Manes  their  master,  as  already 
stated,  they  celebrated  with  considerable  display ;  but  in  celebrating  Christ's 
death,  they  were  quite  lukewarm.  And  for  this  difference,  they  oflfered  the  fol- 
lowing reason  :  Manes  really  died  ;  Christ  only  appeared  to  die.  Thus  Augus- 
tine, (in  his  Liber  contra  Epistolam  Manichasi,  c.  8.  p.  112.)  says:  Cum  saepe 
a  vobis  quaererem  illo  tempore,  quo  vos  audiebam,  quae  caussa  esset,  quod 
Pascha  Domini  (We  may  observe,  that  Augustine  here  uses  the  word  paschn, 
as  the  ancient  church  did,  as  denoting,  not  the  day  commemorative  of  Christ's 
resurrection,  but  the  day  commemorative  of  his  death.)  plerumque  nulla,  intcr- 
dum  a  paucis  tepidissima  celebritate  frequentaretur,  nullis  vigiliis,  nullo  prolix- 
iore  jejunio  auditoribus  indicto,  nullo  denique  festiviore  apparatu,  quum  ves- 
trum  Bema,  id  est,  diem,  quo  Manichaeus  occisus  est  -  -  magnis  honoribu.<* 
prosequamini.     Hoc  ergo  quum  quaererem,  respondebatur,  ejus  diem  passionis 


348  Century  III.— Section  47. 

celebrandura  esse,  qui  vcre  passus  esset ;  Christum  autem,  qui  natus  non  esset, 
neque  veram  sed  simulatam  carnem  humanis  oculis  ostendisset,  non  pertulisse, 
sed  finxisse  passionem.  Whether  they  likewise  observed  the  day  of  Chrisi'a 
resurrection,  that  other  pascha  of  Christians,  called  dvu<rTd<rtfA0Vi  cannot  be  de- 
termined from  this  passage  of  Augustine,  nor  from  any  other  source.  Perhaps 
they  did  not  deem  this  necessary,  because,  like  other  Christians,  they  observed, 
every  week,  Sunday,  as  the  day  on  which  Ciirist  rose  from  the  dead.  But  there 
was  tiiis  singularity  among  them,  that  while  the  laws  of  the  church  forbid  fast- 
ing on  the  day  called  the  Lord's  Day,  the  Manichacans  passed  the  day  without 
food.  The  cause  of  this  custom,  Leo  the  Great  tells  us,  was  their  reverence 
for  the  sun;  Leonis  Sermo  xli.  c.  5.  0pp.  tom.  i.  p.  106.  edit.  Quesnellii) :  Ma- 
nichaei  in  honorem  soils  et  lunac  die  Dominico  ct  secunda  feria  deprehensi 
fuerunt  jejunare  :  uno  perversitatis  suae  opere  bis  impii,  bis  profani  sunt,  qui 
jejunium  suum  et  ad  siderum  cultum,  etad  rcsurrectionis  Christi  instituere  con- 
temtum.  -  -  Ob  hoc  diem  salutis  et  laetitiae  nostrae  sui  jejunii  moerore  con- 
demnant.  Leo  repeats  the  same  thing,  (Epist.  xv.  ad  Turibium,  p.  228.)  :  Ma- 
nichaei,  sicut  in  nostro  examine  detect!  ac  convicti  sunt,  Dominicum  diem,  quern 
nobis  Salvatoris  nostri  resurrectio  consecravit,  exigunt  in  moerore  jejunii:  Soils, 
ut  proditum  est,  reverentiee  banc  continentiam  devoventes.  But  a  very  different 
reason  for  this  practice,  is  adduced  by  Hebed  Jesu,  an  Armeno-Nestoriau  bishop, 
on  the  Canons,  (apud  Jo.  Sim.  Assemanum,  Biblioth.  Oriental.  Clement.  Vatic, 
tom.  iii.  pars  ii.  p.  361.)  For  he  tells  us,  that  the  Manicha2ans  abstained  from 
food  and  drink  on  Sunday,  because  they  supposed  the  world  would  be  dissolved 
[p.  839.J  on  that  day,  and  therefore  looked  for  the  destruction  of  it  every  Sunday : 
Manichsei  resurrectionem  abnegantes  contra  Christianos  jejunium,  luctamque  in 
die  Dominico  faciunt,  aientes,  in  isto  die  fore,  ut  hoc  sajculum  habeat  interitum 
dissolutionemque  omnem.  But  this  reason  is  intirely  inconsistent  with  the 
opinions  of  Manichaeans  respecting  the  world  ;  and  therefore,  is  doubtless 
untrue.  For,  according  to  the  views  of  Manichaeans,  the  destruction  of  our 
world  is  to  be  the  end  of  all  evils,  the  separation  of  light  from  darknesg» 
and  the  termination  of  the  empire  of  the  Prince  of  darkness ;  and  therefore  it 
presented  to  them  ground  for  rejoicing,  rather  than  for  sorrow.  Besides,  if  we 
believe  them,  this  world  will  not  be  destroyed,  until  the  greatest  part  of  the 
souls  in  it  are  recovered  to  God :  and  therefore  they  had  no  reason  to  fear  its 
speedy  dissolution.  Whether  the  reason  offered  by  Leo  was  more  true,  I  very 
much  doubt.  I  know  the  Manichaeans  paid  some  honor  to  the  sun  and  moon  ; 
and  I  have  already  stated  the  fact.  But  that  they  consecrated  certain  days  to 
the  sun  and  moon,  and  considered  fasting  ns  a  part  of  the  worship  to  be  paid  to 
these  heavenly  bodies,  no  one,  acquainted  with  the  principles  of  the  sect,  will 
easily  believe.  I  will  btate,what  has  occurred  to  my  mind,  while  thinking  on  the 
subject.  The  Manichaeans  had  little  regard  for  the  festal  days  of  Christians; 
and  not  without  reason.  For  they  denied  the  reality  of  the  facts,  in  commemo- 
ration of  which  those  days  were  kept.  Yet,  that  they  might  not  appear  to  dif- 
fer too  much  from  other  Christians,  they  observed  as  many  of  these  days  as  they 
could  consistently.  And  they  said,  that  on  those  days  they  expressed  by  action, 
the  things  symbolized  by  the  apparent  actions  and  sufferings  of  Christ.    Aiu 


Missio7i  and  Offices  of  Christ.  34^ 

gustine  is  authority  for  this  opinion,  in  his  Tract  against  Adimantua,  a  celebra- 
ted Manicliajan,  (c.  16.  \  3.  p.  98.)  where  he  says:  Nos  et  Dominicum  diem  et 
Pascha  soletnniter  celebramus,  et  quaslihet  alias  Christianas  dieriun  festivi- 
tales.  -  -  Manieha)i  autem  sic  ca  rcprciiendunt,  quasi  nullos  dies  et  tempora 
observent.  (You  see,  the  Mani'jha3ans  had  little  attachment  to  these  festival 
days  ;  and  they  declared,  that  in  the  celebration  of  them,  they  ditfered  from 
other  Christians:)  Scd  cum  de  his  interrogantur  secundum  opinionem  secta) 
6ua3,  omnia  conantur  exponere,  ut  non  ipsa  tempora,  sed  res,  quarum  ilia  signa 
sunt,  observare  videantur.  And  therefore,  on  the  day  kept  in  memory  of 
Christ's  death,  they  did  not  direct  their  thoughts  to  his  death,  which  they  re- 
garded  as  only  fictitious ;  but  they  meditated  on,  and  in  a  sense  performed,  the 
thing  signified  by  that  imaginary  death.  The  death  of  Christ  was  a  figurative 
representiition  of  the  cahimity  and  misery,  in  which  souls  were  involved,  when 
they  were  inclosed  in  bodies.  They  therefore  fixed  their  thoughts  on  the  sad 
condition  of  their  souls,  and  endeavored  to  restore  the  soul  in  some  measure  to 
life,  or  to  abstract  it  from  the  body.  And,  I  can  suppose,  they  did  the  same 
thing  on  Sundays.  The  feigned  resurrection  of  Christ,  they  supposed,  was 
emblematic  of  the  deliverance  of  souls  from  the  bondage  of  their  bodies.  And 
therefore,  on  Sundays  they  solaced  themselves  with  the  hope  of  such  deliver- 
ance, and  also  prepared  the  way  for  it.  Among  the  effective  means  of  freeing  a 
soul  from  its  prison,  and  fitting  it  for  its  celestial  journey,  abstinence  [p.  840.] 
from  food  was  not  the  least:  and  therefore,  on  Sundays,  they  denied  the  body 
food,  to  advance  the  liberty  of  the  soul. 

§  XLYIII.  Christ  as  the  Saviour  of  Men.  Christ  the  Son  of 
God,  therefore,  came  to  restore  lost  happiness  to  souls :  but  he 
did  not,  by  his  sufferings  and  death,  make  expiation  for  the  sins 
of  intelligent  beings  ;  nor  did  he,  in  their  stead,  satisfy  the  divine 
law.  For,  good  souls,  because  they  are  parts  of  the  divine  na- 
ture, and  God  is  unchangeable,  cannot  become  polluted  and  cor- 
rupt ;  and,  of  course,  they  cannot  really  commit  sin.  They  remain 
pure,  holy,  and  innocent,  even  in  the  most  impure  body ;  and, 
by  their  native  energy,  if  they  would  exert  it,  they  can  pave  and 
prepare  for  themselves  a  way  of  return  to  their  celestial  country.(') 
Christ  therefore  came  down  to  men,  j??'5^,  to  destroy  the  kingdom  of 
the  Prince  of  darkness ;  that  is,  to  withdraw  men  from  the  worship 
of  the  evil  Principle,  and  his  captains,  and  fellow  warriors,  and 
draw  them  to  the  worship  and  religion  of  the  true  God.  And, 
secondly^  he  came  down  to  teach  men  in  what  ways  the  evil  soul, 
together  with  the  body  in  which  it  resides,  should  be  overcome 
and  subdued ;  so  that  the  good  mind  may  be  purged  from  all  ita 
contagion,  and  gradually  become  fitted  and  prepared  for  a  return 
to  the  world  of  light  from  which  it  came.  Christ  therefore  taughi 


350  Century  III.— Section  48. 

a  severe  moral  discipline,  and  prohibited  all  desires  after  exter- 
nal and  sensible  objects,  and  all  bodily  and  sensual  pleasures 
whatever.  For  as  the  body  is  composed  of  matter  that  is  evil  by 
nature,  and  the  soul  living  in  it  is  a  part  of  the  nature  of  the 
Prince  of  darkness  ;  and  as  in  these,  consequently,  the  root  of  all 
evil  is  located  ;  all  the  motions  of  the  sentient  and  craving  soul 
arc  to  be  most  studiously  repressed  ;  and  the  body,  which  excites 
those  motions,  must  be  weakened  and  enervated.(') 

(1)  The  Manichaeans  so  talk  of  the  object  of  Christ's  advent  to  men,  that 
if  one  were  to  regard  only  their  language,  and  not  estimate  its  import  b}'  their 
other  doctrines,  he  might  easily  suppose  that  there  was  little  or  no  difference  of 
opinion  on  this  subject  between  them  and  other  Christians.  For  they  say,  that 
Christ,  by  his  advent,  procured  life  and  salvation  for  souls ;  that  without  him, 
there  was  no  way  to  eternal  life  ;  that  he  is  the  only  Saviour  of  mankind ;  and 
that  his  death  was  beneficial  to  men,  by  procuring  eternal  life.  In  place  of  all, 
hear  how  Foriunatus,  a  Manicliaean  presbyter,  speaks,  (in  his  first  Dispute  with 
[p.  841.]  Aygusiine,ix  69.)  :  Nostra  professio  est  -  -  Deum  sui  similem  Salva- 
torem  direxisse  -  -  ipso  ductore  hinc  iterum  animas  ad  regnum  Dei  reversuras 
esse,  secundum  sanctam  ipsius  pollicitationem,  qui  dixit :  Ego  sum  via,  Veritas 
et  janua.  Et :  Nemo  potest  ad  Patrem  pervenire,  nisi  per  me.  His  rebus  noa 
credimus,  quia  alias  animae,  id  est,  alio  mediante  non  poterunt  ad  regnura  Dei 
reverti,  nisi  ipsum  repererint  viam,  veritatem  et  januam.  Ipse  enim  dixit:  Qui 
me  vidit,  vidit  et  Patrem  meum.  Et :  Qui  in  me  crediderit,  mortem  non  gus- 
tabit  in  seternum,  sed  transitum  facit  de  morte  ad  vitam,  et  in  judicium  non  ve- 
niet.  His  rebus  credimus,  et  h?ec  est  ratio  fidei  nostra).  And,  after  a  few 
other  remarks,  he  says,  (p.  70.)  :  Nos  fotemur  et  ostendimus  ex  Salvatoris  ad- 
ventu,  ex  ipsius  sancta  prasdicatione,  ex  ipsius  electione,  dum  animis  miseretur, 
-  -  ut  eamdem  animam  de  morte  liberaret,  et  perduceret  eam  ad  seternam  gloriam, 
et  restitueret  Patri.  And  near  the  end  of  the  discussion,  (p.  73.) :  Animee  substan- 
tiam  ostendit  (Paulus ;  whom  he  had  just  quoted,)  quod  sit  ex  Deo,  et  animam 
aliternon  posse  reconciliari  Deo,  nisi  per  magistrum,  qui  est  Chistus  Jesus,  -  -  Sal- 
vatorem  Christum  credimus  de  ccelo  venisse,  voluntatem  Patris  complere.  Qua3 
voluntas  Patris  hajc  erat,  animas  nostras  de  eadera  inimicitia  (Dei)  liberare,  in- 
terfecta  eadem  inimiciti^i.  And,  a  little  after :  Virtute  Dei  contrariam  naturam 
vinci  confiteor  et  ad  meum  regressum  Salvatorum  esse  Christum  missum. 
These  declarations  appear  sound  and  beautiful,  if  considered  in  the  gross :  but 
if  compared  with  the  Manichaean  doctrines  concerning  Christ  and  the  soul,  they 
differ  immensely  from  the  sentiments  of  other  Christians,  as  to  the  objects  of 
Christ's  advent.  For,  in  the  first  place,  the  Manichaeans  supposed  Christ  had 
no  flesh  and  blood,  and  that  he  died  only  in  appearance.  Of  course,  they  could 
not  possibly  believe,  that  he  endured  punishment  in  the  stead  of  mankind,  and 
that  he  expiated  our  sins  by  his  death  and  blood.  In  the  next  place,  they  deni- 
ed, that  our  souls  are  infected  and  defiled  with  any  stain  originating  from  the 
first  human  pair :  for,  as  souls  are  portions  of  the  divine  nature,  which  never 


Christ  as  a  Saviour.  351 

can  be  corrupted,  vitiated,  or  deprived  of  its  sanctity,  so  also  souls  cannot  in  any 
degree  lose  their  integrity  ;ind  purity.  And  hence,  souls  never  do  propi-rly  sin; 
but,  contrary  to  their  will,  tiicy  are  driven  by  an  opposing  nature,  which  is  con- 
nected with  them  wliile  they  reside  in  bodies,  to  permit  the  criminal  deeds  of 
the  depraved  soul.  I  have  already  substantiated  this,  by  the  declarations  o\ 
Manes  in  his  Epistle  to  his  daughter  Menoch  ;  and  I  will  now  adduce  some  otliei 
testimonies.  Fortunatus  discoursed  much  on  the  subject  with  Avgustine ;  and 
I  will  cite  some  portions  of  that  discussion.  In  the  first  Dispute,  (p.  70.)  Fur- 
tunalus  says.  Negasti  (Augustine.)  animam  ex  Deo  esse,  quamdiu  peccatis  ac 
vitiis  deservit,  -  -  quod  lieri  non  potest,  ut  aut  Deus  hoe  patiatur  (that  a  soul 
should  serve  sin,)  aut  substantia  ejus,  (the  soul.)  Est  enim  Deus  incorruplibi- 
lis,  ct  substantia  ejus  immaculata  est  et  sancta.  He  goes  on  to  enlarge  upon 
the  subject,  constantly  inculcating,  that  the  soul  is  of  divine  origin,  [p.  842.] 
and  therefore  can  neither  think  nor  do  anything  that  is  evil.  In  the  second  Dis- 
pute, (p.  73.)  he  says :  Dico,  quod  nihil  mali  ex  se  proferat  Deus  omnipotens, 
et  quod  quae  sua  sunt  incorrupta  maneant,  uno  ex  fonte  inviolabili  orta  et  ge- 
nita :  cetera  vero  quae  in  hoc  mundo  versantur  contraria,  non  ex  Deo  manare. 
And  therefore  in  the  soul,  w'hich  originated  from  God,  sinful  emotions  and 
vicious  desires  cannot  nrise ;  they  are  exterior  to  the  soul,  and  arise  from 
the  body  and  the  evil  soul.  Hence,  both  Manes  and  all  his  discpies  most 
positively  deny/?'ee  will,  or  the  power  of  the  soul  to  incline  itself  to  either  good 
or  evil.  Because  the  soul,  being  an  offshoot  from  God,  is  most  constantly,  and 
by  its  own  nature,  borne  towards  the  good,  and  cannot  possibly  choose  what 
is  evil.  The  same  Fortunatus,  strenuously  arguing  against  free  will,  says:  Si 
mala  (if  our  evil  thoughts  and  emotions)  ex  Deo  essent,  aut  daret  licentiam 
peccandi,  quod  dicis  liberum  arbitrium  dedisse  Deum,  consensor  jam  invenieba- 
tur  delicti  mei — aut  ignorans,  quid  futurus  essera,  delinqueret.  -  -  Quae  ab  ipso 
diximus  lacta  esse,  uti  ab  opifice  Deo,  uti  ab  ipso  creata  et  genita  incorruptibi 
lia  haberi — fides  Evangelica  docet.  -  -  Inviti  peccamus  et  cogimur  a  contraria 
et  inimica  nobis  substantia.  And  (p.  75.)  :  Dicimus,  quod  a  contraria  natur^ 
anima  cogatur  delinquere.  -  -  Constat,  hoc,  quod  in  nobis  versatur,  malum,  ex 
auctore  malo  descendere  et  portiunculum  esse  mali  banc  radicem.  Secundinus 
the  Manichaean,  in  his  Epistle  to  Augustine,  {\  2.  p.  369.)  says:  Si  anima  a  spi- 
ritu  vitiorum  incipiat  trahi — ac  poenitudinem  gerat,  habebat  harum  sordium  in- 
dulgentiae  fontem.  Carnis  enim  commixtione  ducitur,  non  proprid  voluntate. 
And  hence  Augustine,  (Disput.  II.  cum  Felice,  c.  8.  p.  348.)  shrewdly  remarks: 
Secundum  vos  (ManichaBOs)  nulla  peccata  sunt.  Gens  enim  tenebrarum  non 
peccat,  quia  suam  naturam  facit :  Natura  lucis  non  peccat,  quia  quod  facit,  fa- 
cere  cogitur.  Nullum  ergo  invenis  peccatum,  quod  damnat  Deus. — These  things 
being  so,  as  the  good  soul  cannot  change  its  divine  nature,  nor  commit  any  sin, 
it  is  manifest,  that  such  a  soul  has  no  need  of  a  Saviour,  to  wash  away  and  re- 
move its  sins,  by  his  death  and  sufferings.  Yet  Augustine  went  too  far,  in  say- 
ing that  there  were  no  sins  whatever,  which  God  could  punish,  on  Manichaean 
principles.  For  according  to  theirViews,  a  soul  sins,  especially  if  it  has  received 
a  knowledge  of  the  truth,  whenever  it  does  not  use  its  intelligence  io  suppress 
the  emotions  and  desires  of  the  body  and  of  the  malignant  soul.    It  sins  by  its 


352  Century  Ill.—Section  48. 

negligence  and  inaction.  For  it  is  required  to  subdue  the  body  and  the  inclina- 
tion to  sin  ;  and  this  it  can  do,  partly  by  its  natural  energy,  partly  by  the  aid  of 
the  truth,  and  partly  by  the  assistance  of  God  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  therefore 
sins  whenever  it  neglects  this  duty,  notwithstanding  the  offences  of  the  body 
and  of  the  evil  soul,  do  not  properly  belong  to  it.  Fortunaliis,  (Disput.  II.  cum 
August,  p.  75.)  says  explicitly  :  Id  est  peceatum  animae,  si  post  cominonitionem 
[p.  843.]  Salvatoris  nostri  ct  sanam  doctrinam  ejus,  a  contraria  et  inimic^  sui 
stirpe  se  non  segregaverit  aniraa,et  prioribus  se  nonadornansanima:  aliterenira 
non  potest  substantise  sua3  reddi.  Dictum  est  enim :  Si  non  venissem  et  locu- 
tus  eis  fuissem,  peceatum  non  haberent.  And  yet  this  sin  of  negligence  and 
inaction,  is  not  voluntary,  but  is  constrained  and  coerced  against  the  will  of  the 
soul.  For  Forlunatus  immediately  subjoins:  Patet  igitur,  (he  had  just  cited 
Rom.  viii.  7.)  his  rebus,  quod  anima  bona,  factione  illius,  quae  legi  Dei  non  est 
Bubjectn,  peccare  videtur,  non  sua  sponte.  And  in  proof  of  this  doctrine,  he 
cites  Galat.  v.  17.  and  Rom.  vii,  23.  The  Manichaeans,  indeed,  sometimes  speak, 
as  if  the  soul  sinned  voluntarily  ;  and,  by  its  assent,  approved  the  lusting  of  the 
evil  soul.  Thus  Secundinus,  (Epist.  ad  August.  §  2.  p.  370.)  Si  vero  anima  a 
Bpiritu  vitiorum  incipiat  train  et  consenliat  ac  post  consensum  poenitudinem  ge- 
rat.  -  -  At  si  cum  seipsam  cognoverit,  consenliat  malo  et  non  se  armet  contra 
inimicum,  voluniate  sua  peccavit.  Hence  Euodius,  (de  fide  contra  Manichaeos, 
c.  6.  in  0pp.  August,  tom.  I.  Append,  p.  25.)  says ;  Ipse  etiam  Manichaeus  non 
potuit  nisi  fateri  animas,  etiam  quas  dicit  ad  substantiam  Dei  pertinere,  propria 
voluntale  peccare.  And  this  he  attempts  to  prove,  by  some  passages  in  the  The- 
saurus of  Manes,  and  from  his  Epislola  Fundamenii.  But  whoever  will  com- 
pare together  all  the  things  said  in  these  passages,  will  easily  see,  that  the  Ma- 
nichaeans use  terms  improperly,  when  they  say,  the  good  soul  sins  voluntarily, 
and  consents  to  the  lustings  of  the  evil  soul.  The  soul,  the  offspring  of  the 
divine  nature,  cannot  possibly  will  or  approve  evil :  and  therefore  its  consent  is 
not  real.  Yet  the  soul  is  said  to  consent  to  tlie  evil  deeds  of  the  bad  soul,  when 
it  suffers  its  perceptions  to  be  obscured  by  the  flesh  and  the  evil  soul,  and  its 
energies  to  become  so  impaired  and  weakened,  as  not  to  resist  them;  it  con- 
sents, when  it  allows  itself  to  be  overcome  and  compelled  by  the  evil  mind,  so 
as  not  to  prevent  what  it  abhors.  This  consent  is  like  that  of  a  man,  who  does 
not  shut  up  his  house  at  night,  nor  keep  a  guard,  and  by  such  negligence  af- 
fords thieves  an  opportunity  to  plunder  some  portion  of  his  goods.  Therefore 
this,  the  only  sin  which  the  soul  can  commit,  is  in  one  sense  involuntary,  and  in 
another  sense  voluntary.  It  is  involuntary,  in  as  much  as  the  pure  mind  can- 
not but  abhor  the  purposes  and  actions  of  the  evil  soul,  and  is  unwillingly  over 
come  and  compelled  not  to  arrest  those  purposes  and  actions :  and  it  is  voluntary, 
in  as  much  as  it  does  not  brace  itself  against  them,  when  it  is  blinded  and  over- 
come. This  sin,  whatever  it  may  be,  is  not  so  great  and  heinous,  that  God  can- 
not let  it  pass  unpunished  ;  nor  does  it  require  any  Saviour.  All  the  crimina- 
lity of  it  maybe  washed  away  by  repentance,  because  it  was  not  voluntary.  So 
the  Manichaeans  invariably  teach.  Thus  Secundinus,  (Epist.  ad  August.  ^  2. 
p.  369.)  ;  Si  anima  post  consensum  poenitudinem  gerat,  habebit  harum  sordiura 
indulgentiee  fontem.    Carnis  enim  commixtione  ducitur,  non  propria  voluntate. 


Christ  as  a,  Savior.  353 

-  -  Quam  si  itcrum  piideat  errasse,  paratum  invcniet  misericordiaruni  [p.  R-U.] 
auctorem,  Non  enim  punitur,  quia  peccavit,  sed  quia  de  peceato  iion  doluit. 
And  FortunatKS,  (Disput.  ii.  cum  Augustino,  p.  75.)  ;  Unde  patet,  rccte  esse 
pceiiitentiam  datam  post  adventum  Servatoris  ct  post  banc  scietitiam  reruni,  (jua 
possit  anima,  aesi  divino  fonte  lota,  de  sordibus  et  vitiis  tani  mundi  totius,  quam 
corporuni,  in  quibu8  eadeiii  anima  versatur,  regno  Dei,  unde  progrcssa  est,  rc- 
pra?scntari. — Tiiis  doctrine  of  tlie  Manichaeans  respecting  tlie  sins  of  tlie  good 
soul,  as  likewise  all  that  they  teach  respecting  both  the  good  soul  and  the  bad 
one,  is,  I  admit,  a  compound  of  incongruities,  and  appears  not  well  put  together. 
But  I  will  not  go  into  an}'  discussion,  as  I  am  merely  acting  the  historian. 

(2)  According  to  Manes,  Christ's  advent  had  two  objects.  In  the  Jlrst  place, 
it  brought  to  men  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.     Before  the  advent  the  greatest 
part  of  mankind,  through  the  wiles  of  the  Prince  of  darkness,  followed  the 
grossest  errors,  and  were  alike  ignorant  of  their  own  nature,  and  of  the  nature 
of  God.     The  Jews,  instead  of  worshipping  God,  worshipped  the  i^rince  of 
darkness  himself,'  and  obeyed  his  law  given  by  Moses,  as  if  it  were  divine.  The 
other  nations  served  the  prefects  of  the  world  of  darkness  resident  in  the  stars, 
and  supposed  them  to  be  Deities.     The  Son  of  God,  therefore,  came  to  over- 
throw this  kingdom  of  darkness  among  men,  which  was  based  on  ignorance  and 
error  ;  or  to  teach  mortals,  whence  came  evil,  what  was  the  origin  of  souls,  and 
what  is  the  cause  of  the  perpetual  conflict  in  man  between  reason  and  inclina- 
tion, &c.  Says  Fortunalus,  (Disput.  I.  cum  August,  p.  74.)  :  Quia  inviti  peccamus 
— idcirco  sequimur  scientiam  rerum.  Qua  scientia  admonita  anima  et  memoriae 
pristinae  reddita  (for  the  soul  resident  in  the  body,  forgets  the  truth  which  it 
before  understood)  recognoscit,  ex  quo  originem  trahat,  in  quo  malo  versetur, 
quibus  bonis  iterum  emendans,  quod  nolens  peccavit,  possit  per  emendationem 
delictorum  suorum,  bonorum  operum  gratia,  meritum  sibi  reconciliationis  apud 
Deum  collocare,  auctore  Salvatore  nostro,  qui  nos  docet  et  bona  exercere  et 
mala  fugere. — In  the  second  place,  Jesus  Christ,  both  by  precept  and  by  example, 
showed  men,  how  the  good  soul  dweliing  in  an  evil  body,  and  associated  with 
an  evil  soul,  must  be  purgatcd,  in  order  to  become  worthy  to  return  to  its 
celestial  country.   He  therefore  prescribed  an  austere  system  of  moral  discipline. 
That  code  of  morals,  which  Manes  says  w\as  taught  by  Christ,  and  which  Manes 
expounded  in  his  Epistola  Fundamenti,  (as  Augustine  testifies,  in  his  work  de 
moribus  Manichseorum,  L.  ii.  c.  20.  0pp.  tom.  i.  p.  554.)  was  most  gloomy,  and 
repulsive  to  human  nature.    The  principal  parts  of  it  are  recounted  with  much 
complacency,  by  Fausiiis,  an  eloquent  disciple  of  Maries,  (L.  v.  c.  I.  2.  p.  140.) 
thus :  Ego  patrem  dimisi,  et  matrem,  uxorem,  filios,  et  cetera,  qua3  Evangeliura 
jubet,  et  interrogas,  utrum  accipiam  Evangelium  ?    Nisi  adhuc  nescis,  quid  sit, 
quod  Evangelium  nuncupatur.     Est  enim  hihil  aliud,  quam  praedicatio  et  man- 
datum  Christi.     (So  then  the  Manicha3ans  affirmed,  that  the  Gospel  [p.  845.] 
consisted  principally  in  the  rules  of  life  enjoined  by  Christ.)    Ego  argentum  et 
aurum  rejeci,  et  ses  in  zonis  habere  destiti,  quotidiano  contentus  cibo,  ncc  de 
crastino  curans.  -  -  Vides  in  me  Christi  beatitudines  illas,  vides  pauperem,  vides 
mitem,  vides  pacificum,  puro  corde,  lugentem,  esurientem,  sitientem,  (Faus/us 
omits  the  words  for  righteousness^  in  order  to  find  his  fasting,  or  the  hungering 
VOL.  H.  24 


354  Century  III. — Scctlo?i  48. 

and  thirsting  practised  by  his  sect,  among  the  precepts  of  Christ;)  persecutiones 
et  odia  sustiiientem.  -  -  Omnia  mea  dimisi,  patrem,  mutrem,  uxorem,  liiios,  au- 
rum,  argentum,  mandiicare,  bibere,  delicias,  voluptates.  Faustus,  a  man  of  in- 
genuity and  liueney,  pursues  the  subject  at  considerable  length  ;  and,  among 
other  things,  lie  says:  Age,  interrogemus  Christum,  undo  potissimum  nobis  sa^ 
lutis  oriatur  occasio.  Quis  hominum  in  regnum  tuum  intrabit,  Chrisle?  Qui 
fecerit,  inquit,  voluntatem  Patris  mei,  qui  in  coelis  est.  Non  dixit,  qui  me  pro- 
fessus  fuerit  natum :  (for  the  Manicha3ans  pertinaciously  denied,  that  Christ 
was  ever  born.)  Et  alibi  dixit  ad  discipulos,  Ite,  docete  omnes  gentes — docen- 
tes  eos  servare  omnia,  quae  mandavi  vobis.  Non  Dixit:  docentes  eos,  quia  sura 
natus.  Nee  non  in  monte  quum  doceret:  Beati  paupercs  -  -  nusquam  dixit: 
Beati,  qui  me  confessi  fuerint  natum,  -  -  Diviti  quaerenli  vitam  aeternam:  Vade, 
inquit,  vende  omnia,  quae  habes,  et  sequere  me.  Non  dixit:  Crede  me  natum, 
ut  in  aeternum  vivas.  And  thus,  whatever  precepts  Christ  gave  to  his  Apostles, 
or  to  individual  men,  are  all  converted  into  general  rules  of  life,  and,  solely  by 
performing  them,  souls  become  prepared,  as  they  supposed,  for  salvation.  Saya 
Secundinus,  (Epist.  ad  August,  p.  369.):  Ut  hominum  corpora  arma  peccati 
sunt,  ita  salutaria  (Christi)  praecepta  arma  justitiae. — As  the  whole  religious 
system  of  Mattes,  is  nothing  but  the  religion  of  the  Persian  Magi,  tinctured 
with  some  portions  of  Christianity;  so,  also,  this  severe  code  of  morals,  is  Per- 
sian, and  derived  from  the  schools  of  the  Magi,  in  which  Manes  was  educated. 
For  this  assertion,  I  have  the  authority  of  Diogenes  Lacrlius,  and  likewise  of 
Eubidus,  whom  Jerome,  (contra  Jovinianum,  L.  ii,  Opp.  torn.  iv.  p,  206.  edit. 
Benedict.)  thus  cites :  Eubulus,  qui  Historian!  Mithrae  multis  voluminibus  ex- 
plicuit,  narrat  apud  Persas  tria  genera  Magorum,  quorum  primos,  qui  sint  doc- 
tissimi  et  eloquentis^imi,  excepta  farina  et  olere,  nihil  amplius  in  cibo  suraere.  I 
add   Clemens  Alexandrinus,  (Stromat.  L.  iii.  p.  533.  edit.  Paris.)  who  says* 

'AfAiKii  J'iu  p/JOVTjtToj  ia-Ti  H.AI  Toii  Mayots,  oiyov  Tt  huovy  koX  £,«%j.y^av  x.a\  dj'poS'iTiar 
dzt;)(^i'r^ut,  Xar^ivova-iv  dyyc'Xois  xai  S'aifAo<riv.  Certe  Magis  quoque  curae  est,  qui 
angelos  et  daemones  colunt,  simul  a  vino  et  anim:itis  et  rebus  venereis  abstinere. 
No  two  things  could  be  more  perfectly  alike,  than  the  Manichaeans  and  these 
Magi.  According  to  our  feelings,  most  of  the  duties  which  Manes,  in  imitation 
of  the  Magi,  enjoined  on  his  followers,  are  exceedingly  unpleasant;  but  they 
[p.  846.]  were,  undoubtedly,  less  annoying  to  the  Persians;  whose  bodies,  like 
those  of  all  the  Orientals,  do  not  require  so  much  nutriment  as  ours,  and  who 
can  dispense  with  flesh  and  solid  food  without  much  inconvenience,  and  neither 
crave  nor  relish  wine.  The  modern  Per-sians  liave  no  fondness  for  wine  or 
flesh,  and  can  live  very  comfortably  on  fruits,  herbs,  and  melons.  I  have  no 
doubt,  therefore,  that  both  Manes  and  his  early  followers  observed  the  precepts 
he  set  forth,  and  led  a  sober  and  apparently  an  austere  life.  This,  Manes  could 
the  more  easily  do,  because  he  had  been  accustomed  to  those  rules  from  early 
life  among  the  Magi.  But  this  discipline,  which  in  Asia  was  but  slightly  repul- 
sive and  painful,  when  transferred  to  Europe  and  other  regions,  was  very  an- 
noying and  painful,  and  it  exhausted  and  emaciated  the  body.  Hence  the  Mani- 
chseans  who  lived  at  Rome,  and  in  Italy,  and  Africa,  were  most  of  them  pale, 
lean,  and  emaciated,  with  gloom  and  anguish  visible  in  their  countenances.  Thia 


Christ  as  a  Saviour.  355 

appearance  of  excessive  abstinence  and  self-denial,  is  conceded  to  them  by  IJicir 
most  virulent  opposers,  notwithstanding  they  give  intiin.itions  thut  the  j)rivato 
habits  of  the  sect  were  not  very  sober  and  chaste.  Aiigusline,  in  his  work  de 
utilitate  crcdendi,  addressed  to  Honoratus,  whom  lie  wished  to  recover  from 
Manichaeism,  (c.  18.  0pp.  torn.  i.  p.  51.)  thus  writes:  Alia  niulta  me  docuit  ec- 
clesia  catholica,  quo  illi  homines  (Manichaei)  exsanques  corporibus,  scd  crassi 
mentibns  adspirare  non  possunt.  And  Leo  the  Great,  (Serrno  xxxiii.  c.  4.  0pp. 
tom.  i.  p.  93.)  says:  Neminem  fallant  (Manichaii)  discretionibus  ciboruni,  sordi- 
bns  vestiuni,  vultumnque  palloribus.  Non  sunt  casta  jejunia,  quaj  non  de  ralione 
veniunt  continentite,  sed  de  arte  fiillacias.  Leo  would  persuade  his  hearers,  tiuit 
the  lean  and  emaciated  form,  and  the  pallidness  of  the  Manichaians,  which  could 
not  be  denied,  were  the  result  of  some  imposition,  and  not  of  abstinence:  but 
I  know  not,  whether  he  had  good  evidence  to  support  him.  The  pallidncs  of  the 
Manichaeans  became  proverbial  at  Rome;  so  that  persons  meeting  a  young 
woman  with  a  pallid  countenance,  would  call  her  a  Manichaean.  Thus  Jerome 
tells  us,  (Epist.  xviii.  ad  Eustochium  de  custodia  virginitalis,  0pp.  tom.  iv.  Pars 
ir.  p.  32.);  Et  quam  viderint  pallentem  atque  tristem,  miseram,  Monacham  et 
Manichccam  vocant.  And  yet  these  colorless,  lean,  and  sorrowful  Manichaeans, 
who  dwelt  at  Rome  and  in  Italy  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  were  not 
genuine  followers  of  Manes,  but  had  departed  in  many  respects  from  the  strict 
rules  of  their  master.  For  the  Manichaean  discipline  had  been  relaxed  in  the 
countries  of  the  West;  nor  were  even  their  bishops  able  to  endure  the  discip- 
line, which  Manes  imposed  in  his  Epistola  Fundamenti.  A  striking  example  in 
point,  is  narrated  by  Augustine,  (de  moribus  Manichaeorum,  L.  ii.  c.  20.  tom.  i. 
p.  553,  554.  and,  contra  Faustum,  L.  v.  c.  7.  tom.  viii.  p.  142.)  One  Constanlius, 
a  Manichaean  of  the  class  called  Auditors,  a  man  of  great  wealth,  and  peculiarly 
devoted  to  the  intersts  of  his  sect,  was  much  troubled,  at  hearing  that  the  dis- 
persed and  vagrant  Manichaeans  often  lived  quite  otherwise  than  the  [p.  847.] 
law  of  Manes  required.  And,  to  put  an  end  to  this  disgrace,  he  wished  to  col- 
lect them  together  in  his  own  house,  where  they  could  conveniently  live  accord- 
ing to  the  precepts  of  their  master.  At  first,  the  bishops  of  the  seel,  knowing  the 
intollerablo  severity  of  their  rules,  resisted  his  purpose;  and  he  complained^  that 
his  so  important  efforts  were  foiled,  by  the  laxness  of  the  bishops,  (who,  ne\erthe- 
less,  w^ere  pallid  and  colorless,)  by  whose  assistance  those  efforts  ought  to  be  car- 
ried  into  effect.  But,  by  good  fortune,  one  of  the  bishops  favored  his  project. 
Therefore  all  the  Elect,  who  could  be  collected,  ivere  assembled  at  Rome.  The  rule 
of  life  in  the  Epistle  of  Manes  was  proposed.  Many  deemed  it  intollerable,  and 
retired;  but  a  considerable  number,  from  modesty,  remained.  These  commenced 
living,  as  Constantius  wished,  and  as  was  j^rescribed  by  so  high  authority.  But 
their  zeal  was  of  short  duration.  First,  broils  arose  among  them ;  then,  they 
muttered,  that  these  mandates  could  not  be  endured;  and  thence  sedition.  Constan- 
tius, the  founder  of  the  company,  showed  them  clearly,  that,  either  all  these  pre- 
cepts  are  to  be  followed,  or  the  man  must  be  deemed  a  consumate  fool,  who  gave 
precepts  which  no  one  can  follow.  But  he  could  effect  nothing.  First  the  bishop 
eloped;  and  many  followed  his  example.  Yet,  a  few  remained,  who  had  sepa- 
rated from  the  rest.    And  these,  the  other  Manichaeans  contemptuously  called 


Tl)(j  Century  Ill.—Sectloii  48. 

Mattarli,  because  they  slept  on  malice  (mats),  a  sort  of  rude  beds  without 
frames. — This  shows,  how  great  was  the  severity  of  the  moral  discipline  of  Ma- 
nes; which  could  not  be  endured,  even  by  those  who  otherwise  lived  abstemi- 
ously and  harshly,  or  by  persons  who  manifested  by  their  countenances,  and  by 
the  leanness  and  emaciation  of  their  bodies,  how  much  they  shunned  all  indul- 
gences.— But,  let  us  come  more  directly  to  our  subject. 

As  the  body,  according  to  Manes,  is  itself  evil,  and  is  the  work  of  the  Prince 
of  darkness,  or  a  prison  in  which  good  souls  are  held  captive,  it  was  necessary 
that  he  should  teach,  that  the  body  is  to  be  attenuated,  tortured,  and  deprived 
of  all  comforts.  And  as  he  further  held,  that  the  good  soul  is  influenced  by  no 
cravings  and  no  desires,  and  maintained  that  all  appetites  and  lusts  are  seated 
in  the  evil  soul,  which  dwells  in  the  body;  he  could  not  avoid  inculoating,  that 
all  appetence  whatever  of  things  without  us.  is  not  merely  to  be  restrained  and 
allayed,  but  to  be  wholly  extirpated;  that  all  emotions  and  affections  of  the 
mind,  being  in  their  very  nature  evil,  are  to  be  slain,  and  no  inclination  is  to  be 
gratified.  For,  the  more  liberty  is  allowed  to  the  evil  soul  of  desiring  and 
hankering,  the  more  langor  and  weakness  befall  the  good  soul ;  so  that  it  becomes 
less  able  to  purge  itself,  and  to  repel  the  defilements  with  which  it  is  beset  on 
every  side.  And,  on  the  contrary,  the  more  rigidly  the  good  mind  binds  down 
and  confines  the  body  and  the  evil  soul,  the  more  easily  it  forces  its  way  out  of 
the  darkness.  The  true  Manichaean,  therefore,  will  not  suffer  himself  to  be  in- 
fluenced by  any  desire  whatever  of  any  sensible  object;  he  must  neither  sorrow 
nor  rejoice,  neither  fear  nor  hope,  every  pleasure  must  be  shunned,  and  the 
drama  of  this  world  must  be  contemplated  with  a  stable,  unmoved,  and  tranquil 
[p.  848.]  mind.  Those  only  who  obey  this  law,  can  hope  to  return  to  the  world 
of  light  when  they  leave  the  body. — But,  as  Manes  could  foresee,  that  if  he  pre- 
scribed to  all  his  followers  this  very  stringent  law  so  revolting  to  human  nature, 
he  could  have  but  few  adherents,  and  be  the  head  of  only  a  small  sect ;  he  pre- 
scribed a  more  indulgent  rule  for  the  multitude  or  the  common  people.  And 
thus,  following  the  example  of  the  Magi,  from  whom  he  derived  the  greatest 
part  of  his  regulations,  he  divided  his  commonwealth  into  the  Elect  and  the 
Auditors;  the  former,  bound  to  observe  most  sacredly  all  the  irksome  precepts 
soon  to  be  described,  and  the  latter,  allowed  to  follow  the  instincts  of  nature. 
Of  this  distinction  among  Manichaeans,  we  shall  treat  in  the  proper  place ;  we 
nosv  consider  only  the  rule  of  life  for  the  Electa  and  which  is  the  only  way 
to  salvation. 

The  Manichajans  arranged  their  whole  system  of  moral  discipline  under 
three  heads,  which  they  called  Signacula,  or  Seals;  namely,  the  signaculum  of 
the  mouth,  of  the  hands,  and  of  the  bosom.  Thus  Augustine,  (de  Moribus  Mani- 
chseor.  L.  ii.  c.  10.  p.  538.):  Videamus  tria  ilia  signacula,  quae  in  vestris  moribus 
magna  laude  ac  prajdicatione  jactatis.  Qua?  sunt  tandem  ista  signacula  ?  Oris 
certe,  et  manuum  ac  sinus.  Ut  ore,  et  manibus,  et  sinu,  castus  et  innocens  sit 
homo.  I  have  no  doubt  that  Manes  derived  this  distribution  of  duties  from  the 
Persian  Magi..  Augustine  contends  that  it  is  clumsy  and  imperfect ;  which  we 
readily  grant:  but  if  the  system  was  in  other  respects  correct,  we  could  put  up 
with  the  imperfection  of  the  distribution.    Before  we  arrange  the  duties  en- 


Christ  as  a  Saviour.  357 

joined  by  Maniehasans  under  these  three  heads,  let  us  hear  their  own  explana- 
tion of  the  distinction  they  make.  Aiigusline  thus  states  the  views  of  the  doc- 
tors of  the  sect :  Quum  os  nomino,  onines  sensus,  qui  sunt  in  capite,  intclligi 
volo;  quum  auteni  raanum,  omnem  operationem;  quum  sinum,  omnem  libidi- 
nem  seminalem.  Therefore,  all  duties  and  faults,  which  can  be  referred  to  the 
eyes,  the  ears,  the  tongue,  the  mouth,  the  taste,  or  the  smell,  belong  to  the  first 
sigjiacidum,  that  of  the  mouth  All  actions,  whether  commanded  or  forbidden, 
are  comprehended  under  the  second  signaculum,  that  of  the  hands.  The  third 
signaculum^  that  of  the  bosom,  prohibits  all  venereal  desires  whatever. — Among 
the  duties  of  the  signaculum  of  tiie  mouth,  the  first  was,  (as  Augustine  tells  us, 
1.  c.  c.  11.  p.  538.)  to  refrain  from  all  blasphemy.  This  precept,  in  accordance 
with  their  views,  they  so  explained  as  to  declare  those  blasphemers,  who  pro- 
fessed but  one  first  cause  of  all  things,  who  taught  that  the  bodies  of  men  and 
animals  were  created  by  God,  who  inculcated  that  the  law  of  Moses  proceeded 
from  God,  who  declared  that  the  Son  of  God  was  born  and  actually  died ;  and, 
on  the  contrary,  those  had  holy  thouglits  of  God,  and  were  believed  to  eschew 
all  blasphcmrj,  who  embraced  and  professed  the  religion  taught  by  Manes.  This 
precept  is  therefore  very  broad,  and  requires  the  adoption  of  the  intire  system 
of  the  Manichteans.— In  the  next  place,  to  the  signaculum  oris  belongs,  the  rigid 
and  austere  abstinence  of  the  Manichaeans.  This  required  them,  first,  [p.  849.] 
to  abstain  from  all  flesh.  See  Augustine ;  (de  Hajres.  c.  46.  and,  de  Moribus 
Manichffior.  L.  ii.  c.  13,  «fec.  p.  540.)  Faustus,  also,  (L.  vi.  c.  1  p.  145.)  says: 
Omnem  ego  carnem  immundum  existimo.  The  principal  reason  for  this  precept 
undoubtedly  was,  that  the  use  of  flesh  as  food,  strengthened  the  body,  which 
should  be  weakened  and  attenuated  ;  and  excited  and  inflamed  animal  passions, 
which  should  be  wholly  extinguished.  But  there  were  other  reasons.  Ani- 
mals, w^hile  alive,  contain  light  or  celestial  soul  commingled  with  matter;  but 
when  dead,  their  flesh  is  wholly  without  soul,  and  consequently  is  a  mere  mass 
of  matter,  belonging  entirely  to  the  kingdom  of  darkness:  and  therefore,  those 
who  eat  it,  augment  and  enlarge  the  quantity  of  evil  which  is  in  them.  Says 
Augustine,  (de  Moribus  Manich.  L.  ii.  c.  15.  p.  543.):  Aiunt,  cum  anima  car- 
nem deseruerit,  nimias  sordes  reliquas  fieri,  et  ideo  eorum,  qui  carnibus  vescun- 
tur,  animam  coinqulnari.  That  no  portion  of  light  or  celestial  matter  remained 
in  the  flesh,  they  proved  from  this,  that  flesh  when  burned  emitted  no  light. 
Says  Augustine,  (1.  c.  c.  16.  p.  544.):  Dicitis,  olivse  folia  cum  Incenduntur,  ig- 
nem  emittere,  in  quo  pra^sentia  lucis  apparet;  carnes  autem  cum  incenduntur 
non  idem  facere.  I  pass  by  other  reasons. — From  the  same  causes,  undoubtedly, 
they  reckoned  eggs  and  milk  among  forbidden  aliments.  Says  Augustine,  (de 
Hajres.  c.  46.  p.  12.)  :  Nee  ova  saltem  sumunt,  quasi  et  ipsa  cum  franguntur 
expirent,  nee  oporteat  ullis  raortuis  corporibus  vesci  -  -  Sed  nee  alimonia  lac- 
tis  utuntur,  quamvis  de  corpore  animantis  vivente  mulgeatur  sive  sugatur,  non 
quia  putant  divinoe  substantia  nihil  ibi  esse  permixtum,  sed  quia  sibi  error  ipse 
non  constat.  Augustine  here  thinks,  they  had  no  reason  for  prohibiting  the 
use  of  milk ;  but  it  is  sufficiently  clear,  that  they  had  a  reason.— F/.-^A,  they 
abominated,  even  more  than  flesh ;  and  they  vvould  rather  starve  than  cat  it. 
Augustine,  (contra  Faustum,  L.  xvi.  c.  9.  p.  205.) :  Cur  ita  piscem  voa  noxiuro 


358  Century  IlL— Section  48. 

proedicatis,  ut  si  alia  esca  non  occurrat,  prius  fame  consumamini,  quam  piscb 
vescamiiii.  Perhaps,  as  often  elsewiiere,  Augustine  here  exaggerates,  in  regard 
to  the  Manichaean  abhorrence  of  fish.  But  if  his  statement  is  true,  I  confess  I 
can  assign  no  reason  for  this  abhorrence. — As  the  Manichseans  prohibited  the 
use  of  all  animal  food,  they  were  obliged  to  repel  hunger,  with  bread,  salads, 
herbs,  pulse,  fruits,  and  the  products  of  the  earth  and  trees.  They  therefore 
used,  first,  bread;  both  ordinary  bread,  and  also  cakes.  Of  their  bread  Angus- 
tine  speaks,  (contra  Faustum,  L.  xx.  c.  23.  p.  248.) :  Eo  pane  vescimini,  quo  ce- 
teri  homines,  et  fructibus  vivitis  et  fontibus.  Of  their  cakes  he  often  speaks, 
and  particularly,  (de  Moribus  Manichaeor.  L.  ii.  c.  16.  p.  547.):  In  Electis  ves- 
tris  esse  non  potest,  qui  proditus  fuerit,  non  concupiscendo,  sed  medendo  (for 
[p.  850.]  the  recovery  of  health,)  partem  aliquam  coenasse  gallinae  :  esse  autem 
in  iis  potest,  qui  vehementer  cumiphas  (a  species  of  cakes,)  et  alia  placenta  de- 
sidorasse  se  ipse  providerit.  I  cite  this  passage  in  preference  to  others  of  the 
kind,  because  it  shows,  that  flesh  was  so  strictly  prohibited  by  them,  that  even 
the  sick  could  not  use  it  without  offending.  They  also  preferred  potherbs  and 
the  products  of  trees  and  the  ground,  before  bread  and  cakes  ;  because  the  for- 
mer, they  supposed,  contained  a  greater  portion  of  the  celestial  elements  than 
the  other  kinds  of  food.  Says  Augustine^  (de  Moribus  Manichaeor.  L.  ii.  c.  16. 
p.  543.) :  Quaero,  unde  doceatis,  in  frumentis  ac  legumine,  et  oleribus,  et  flori- 
bus  et  pomis  inesse  istam  nescio  quam  partem  Dei.  Ex  ipso  coloris  nitore, 
inquiunt,  et  odoris  jucunditate,  et  saporis  suavitate  manifestum  est:  quae  dum 
non  habent  putria,  eodem  bono  sese  deserta  esse  significant.  A  little  before, 
(c.  13.  p.  541.)  he  had  given  a  list,  though  an  imperfect  one  of  the  Manichaean 
eatables,  thus:  Quid  porro  insanius  dici  aut  cogitari  potest,  hominem  boletos, 
orizam,  tubera,  placentas,  caroenum,  piper,  laser,  distento  ventre  cum  gratula- 
tione  ructantem  et  quotidie  talia  requirentem,  non  inveniri,  quemadmodum  a 
tiibus  signaculis,  id  est,  a  regula  sanctitatis  excidisse  videatur,  aliam  vero  fru- 
ges  vilissimas  fumoso  obsonio  (lard,  he  supposes,)  condientem  certo  supplicio 
praeparari.  But  of  no  food  were  the  IManichaeans  more  fond,  than  of  melons. 
For  their  master  had  a  predilection  for  them  ;  which  is  not  strange,  he  being  a 
Persian,  and  the  Persians  to  this  day  making  great  use  of  melons,  which  their 
country  produces  of  the  most  delicious  kind.  Says  Augustine,  (de  Moribus 
Manichaeor.  L.  ii.  c.  15,  p.  544.) :  De  thesauris  Dei  melonem  putatis  aureum 
esse.  And,  (c.  18.  p.  550.) :  Melonibus  quam  hominibus  estis  amiciores.  Next 
to  melons,  they  preferred  potherbs  and  olix:es.  Says  Augustine,  (1.  citato,  p.  544.)  : 
Cur  nitorcm  atque  fulgorem  olei  clamare  copiam  coadmixti  boni  arbitraraini,  et 
ad  id  purgandum  fauces  et  ventrem  paratis.  The  first  Manichaeans,  like  their 
founder,  ate  their  fruits,  potherbs  and  salads,  simple,  or  undressed  and  unseiu 
soned  ;  and  tiiis  was  required  by  the  law  of  Manes ;  which  condemned  all 
gratifications  of  the  bodily  senses,  lest  the  evil  soul  should  become  excited  by 
them.  But  in  this  particular,  as  in  many  others,  the  European  and  African 
Manichaeans  departed  widely  from  the  rule  of  their  master ;  for  they  seasoned 
their  potherbs  and  pulse,  with  pepper  and  other  things.  Hence  Augustine^ 
(1.  citato,  c.  13.  p.  541.)  charges  upon  them  that:  Exquisitas  et  peregrinas  fru- 
ges  multis  ferculis  variatas  et  largo  pipere  adspersas  nona  hora  libenter  assu- 


Christ  as  a  Saviour.  359 

mant,  noetia  etinm  principio  talli  cocnent.  And,  (e.  16.  p.  541.)  ho  says  to 
tliem  :  Quat'  ratio  est,  w\  potiiis  amentia,  de  numero  Electoruni  lioniincMn  j)el- 
lere,  qui  forte  carnoni  vaU-tudinis  eaussa  gustaverit :  Si  auteni  piperata  tuhera 
voraeiter  edere  concupierit,  iinmodestia  tantum  forte  possitis  reprehendcrc,  non 
uutem  ut  corruptort'm  damiiure  sigiiaculi  ?  And  yet  Augustine  admits,  [p.  851.] 
that  there  were  some  among  them,  though  few,  so  zealous  for  the  ancient  and 
rigid  customs,  that  they  blamed  these  too  luxurious  brethren  ;  (I.  citato,  p.  541.)  : 
Electus  vostcr  tribus  signaculis  proedicatus,  si  ita,  uti  dixi,  vivat,  ab  uno  et  for- 
tasse  duobus  gravioribus  reprclicndi  potest,  damnari  autcm  tanqnam  signaculi 
dissignator  non  potest.  Si  autem  seme!  frusto  pernae  vel  rancido  labra  unxerit 
et  vappa  udaverit,  solutor  signaculi  vestri  auctoris  sententia  judicabitur. — From 
their  food,  I  pass  to  their  drink.  The  law  of  Manes  most  strictly  prohibited  all 
use  of  wine  ;  and,  undoubtedly,  all  other  intoxicating  drinks.  Wine^  as  already 
stated,  Manes  declared  to  be  the  gall  of  the  Prince  of  darkness,  poured  upon 
the  earth.  Yet  his  Italian  and  African  disciples,  in  the  times  of  Augustine,  had 
no  hesitation  to  eat  grapes.  Says  Augustine,  (I.  citato,  c.  16.  p.  545.) ;  Qufe 
tanta  perversio  est,  vinum  putare  fel  principum  tenebrarum,  et  uvis  comedendis 
non  parcere  1  Magisne  inerit  illud  fei  cum  in  cupa,  quam  cum  in  acinis  fuerit? 
But,  I  suppose,  these  Manicha3ans  took  greater  liberties,  than  the  very  severe 
and  troublesome  law  of  their  master  allowed.  And  these  later  Manichajana 
differed  also  from  the  more  ancient,  in  other  things  pertaining  to  this  part  of 
their  discipline.  The  primitive  Manichaeans  drank  either  pure  water,  or  as 
Cyrill  of  Jerusalem  says,  (Cateches.  vi.  §  31.  p.  108.)  water  with  an  infusion  of 
wheat  or  barley  straw  :  tcis  dx'jp'^v  uS^no-ty  palearum  aquis.  But  the  Angustinian 
Manichaeans  were  more  indulgent  to  the  palate ;  although  it  was  displeasing 
to  the  graver  and  more  austere  "brethren.  For  Augustine  says,  (1.  citato,  c.  13. 
p.  541.):  Bibebant  mulsum,  caroenum  passum,  et  nonnullorum  poniorum  ex- 
presses succos,  vini  speciem  satis  imitantes,  atque  id  etiam  suavitate  vincentes. 
What  Augustine  here  calls  caroenum  passum,  he  hnd  just  before  called  coctuin 
vinum,  (c.  16.  p.  546.)  :  Caroenum,  quod  bibitis,  nihil  aliud  quam  coctum  vinum 
est,  quod  vino  deberet  esse  sordidius.  Beausobre,  (vol.  II.  p.  775.)  well  con- 
jectures,  that  this  caranum  was  water  in  which  bruised  grapes  had  been  boiled. 
Undoubtedly,  it  was  some  kind  of  liquor,  produced  from  bruised  grapes,  by 
boiling ;  and  one  which  the  Latins  called  passum,  a  name  also  used  by  Augus- 
tine. But  I  do  not  suppose  this  caroenum,  to  be  that  species  of  sweet  factitious 
wine,  called  carenum,  mentioned  by  Palladius.  And  yet  I  have  doubts,  whether 
the  two  words  caroenum  passum  should  be  joined  together,  as  they  are  in  the 
printed  editions  of  Augustine  ;  or  should  be  disjoined,  so  as  to  make  them  de- 
note two  kinds  of  liquor.  Some  of  the  Manichaeans  also  used  hordei  succo ; 
that  is,  as  I  apprehend,  beer  or  ale.  Says  Aiigustine,  (c.  16.  p.  546.)  :  Ilordci 
quidam  succo  vinum  imitantur. — Hoc  genus  potus  citissime  inebriat :  nee  tanien 
unquam  succum  hordei  fel  principum  dixistis. — I  proceed  to  other  things.  As 
the  signaculum  oris  extended  to  all  the  senses,  and  condemned  all  indulgenco 
of  them,  I  suppose  we  must  referto  it; — First,  Thatthe  Manichaeans  were  [p.  852.] 
required  by  their  master  to  sleep,  not  on  couches,  but  on  the  ground,  or  on  matts 
or  coarse  rags.     Epiphanius,  (Ilaeres.  Ixvi.  {12.  p.  629.)  says,  they  slept  iwl 


SCO  Century  Ill—Section  48. 

x5txaMo/f,  on  rushes.  Of  thie,  I  have  already  spoken  ;  and  I  may  here  observe, 
that  Manes  borrowed  this  part  of  his  discipline  also  from  the  Magi.  For  Soiion, 
as  quoted  by  Diogenes  Lccrllus,  (Proem,  de  dictis  et  factis  Philosophor.  p.  6.) 

says  of  the  Magi:   Touruv  J'l   itrd-m  /utv  >w«yx«,   a-Ti0as  /«   iwiii  x«i   \d^Avov  t^o^», 

Tvpds  ri  Kai  aproc  iuriK»i.  His  vestis  Candida,  lectus  humus,  esca  olus,  caseus, 
panisque  eibarius  est.  If  you  except  from  this  list  the  cheese,  which,  as  well  as 
milk,  the  Manichaeans  abhorred  ;  you  have  here,  the  mode  of  living  prescribed 
by  Manes  to  his  disciples. — Secondly,  That  they  were  to  be  clad  in  plain,  and 
even  sordid  garments,  entirely  without  ornament ;  and  to  wear  their  beards  and 
hair  long,  after  the  example  of  their  master.  We  have  already  cited  a  passage 
from  Leo  the  Great.  As  for  the  clothing  and  beard  of  Manes,  see  Archelaiis* 
Dispute  with  him,  (p.  23.)  :  Habebat  caleeamenti  genus,  quod  quadrisole  vulgo 
appellari  solet,  (high  and  troublesome  :)  pallium  autem  varium,  tanquam  aerina 
specie,  (old  and  much  worn,  I  suppose,  so  that  its  color  could  hardly  be  de- 
termined :)  in  manu  vero  validissimum  baculum  tenebat,  (as  was  usual  with  the 
Magi,)  ex  ligno  ebelino ;  crura  etiam  braccis  obtexerat  colore  diverso,  quarum 
una  rufa,  alia  velut  prasini  choris  erat,  (that  is,  to  indicate  his  poverty,  he  wore 
trowsers  of  various  pieces  of  different  colored  cloth  sewed  together;  such  as 
beggars  wore.)  Vultus  vero  ut  senis  Persse  artificis  et  bellorum  ducis  (that 
is,  grave  and  venerable,)  erat.  Archelaus  thus  addressed  him,  (^  36.  p.  23.)  : 
Barba  (i.  e.  long-bearded)  Sacerdos  Mithrse  et  collusor. — Thirdly,  That  they 
were  required  to  shun  the  baths,  the  shows,  and  the  theatres.  Augustine,  (in 
his  last  Book  de  Moribus  Manichseorum,  p.  551,  552,)  specifying  in  what  re- 
spects the  Maniehseans  had  abandoned  the  unconfortable  rule  of  their  master, 
among  other  things,  says  :  Multi  in  vino  et  carnibus,  multi  lavantes  in  balneis 
inventi  sunt.  In  theatris  Electos  et  aetate  et  moribus  graves  cum  sene  presby- 
tero  saepissime  invenimus.  Omitto  juvenes,  quos  etiam  rixantes  pro  scenicis  et 
aurigis  deprehendere  solebamus.  Baths,  therefore,  and  theatres  and  shows, 
were  utterly  forbidden  them.  Tyrho,  likewise,  (in  the  Acta  Archelai,  \  10. 
p.  16.)  testifies  to  the  strict  prohibition  of  the  baths. — To  all  these  duties,  com- 
prised under  the  signaculum  of  the  mouth,  were  added  fasts,  both  annual  and 
on  certain  days  of  each  week,  obligatory  on  Manichaeans.  As  to  their  annual 
fasts,  I  find  nothing  specific  on  record :  yet  that  they  held  such  fasts,  cannot  be 
doubted.  Jerome  tells  us,  (Comment  on  Amos.  c.  3.  0pp.  tom.  iii.  p.  1396.) 
that,  just  like  Tatian  :  Manichaeum  laborare  continentia  et  jejuniis,  xerophagiis, 
chamaeeuniis.  Many  suppose  the  last  word  to  denote  vigils ;  but  I  doubt  it. 
[Du  Cange,  Glossar.  mediae  et  imf  Latinit.  tom.  i.  p.  1042,  thinks  chameuncc 
{^dLfAtuviai)  to  be  matts  spread  on  the  ground  for  sleeping.]  Yet  it  is  certain, 
[p.  853.]  that  the  Manichaeans  kept  vigils,  and  held  them  at  stated  times :  Au- 
gustine occasionally  mentions  them.  Jerome,  in  another  passage,  (Comment  on 
Joel,  tom.  iii.  p.  1345.)  says:  Jejunat  Manichaeus :  sed  hoc  jejunium  saturitate 
et  ebrietate  deterius  est.  Two  days  in  every  week,  Sundays  and  Mondays,  the 
Manichaeans  devoted  to  fasting  :  of  this  we  have  before  given  evidence.  One 
of  these  fasts,  that  on  what  we  call  the  Lord's  day,  or  Sunday,  was  observed 
both  by  the  Elect  and  the  Auditors ;  and,  of  course,  was  a  fast  of  the  whole 
church.    To  this  Augustine  testifies,  (Epist.  ccxxxvi.  tom.  ii.  p.  643.)  :  Audi- 


Christ  as  a  Saviow,  3(51 

tores  die  quoque  Dominleo  cum  Electis  jejiinant,  et  omnes  blnspliomias  cum  il- 
lia  credunt.  From  tliis  it  is  inferred,  that  the  fast  of  the  second  day  of  tho 
week,  or  Monday,  was  confined  to  the  Elect.  Tiiat  these  fasts  were  very  strict 
and  restrained  the  Manichaeans  from  all  food  and  drink,  the  precepts  of  tiie  sect 
put  beyond  all  controversy.  And  hence,  tliey  accounted  it  among  the  best 
proofs  of  tJieir  sanctity.  Said  Fauslus,  (L.  v.  c.  1.  p.  140.)  :  Vides  me  esurien- 
teni  et  sitientem :  et  interrogas,  utrum  accipiam  Evangelium?  Huno-er  and 
thirst,  therefore,  according  to  the  Manichaeans,  were  not  the  smallest  part  of 
that  Gospel  which  the  Son  of  God  proclaimed  to  men :  and  to  prove  it,  they 
mutilated  the  words  of  the  Savior,  Matth,  v.  6.  by  omitting  the  word,  ^iKuioa-uinvy 
righteousness ;  so  that  their  copies  read  simply ;  Blessed  are  they  that  hun<rer 
and  thirst. — Of  all  the  pleasures  of  sense,  the  signaculum  oris  tolerated  but  o?/e, 
that  derived  from  music.  For  they  supposed  music  to  be  of  divine  orin-in  ;  as 
Augustine  informs  us,  (de  moribus  Manichaeor.  L.  ii.  c.  16.  p.  546.)  :  Dulcedo 
musica,  quam  de  divinis  regnis  venisse  contenditis,  nobis  mortuarum  carnium 
sordibus  exhibetur.  Beausobre,  (in  the  Preface  to  his  Histoire  de  Manichee, 
p.  xxxi.)  adds  the  pleasure,  which  the  mind  derives  through  the  nostrils  from 
perfumes  and  burning  incense.  Where  he  learned  this,  I  do  not  know ;  but  it 
is  quite  credible  ;  for  the  Persians,  like  all  the  people  of  the  East,  are  exceed- 
ingly fond  of  sweet  odors.  Besides,  that  the  pleasures  of  smell  were  not  deem- 
ed unlawful  by  the  Manichaeans,  is  sufficiently  manifest  from  the  fact,  before 
mentioned,  that  they  concluded  ex  odoris  jucunditate  emitted  by  fruits  and 
flowers,  that  these  contained  more  celestial  matter  than  other  objects.  See 
Augustine,  (de  moribus  Manichaeor.  L.  ii.  c.  16.  p.  543.) 

I  pass  to  the  signaculum  of  the  hands;  which  prohibited  all  actions  incon- 
sistent with  the  tranquillity  of  the  soul,  or  proceeding  from  any  desire.  For,  if 
we  except  the  single  desire  of  returning  to  the  celestial  country  after  leaving 
the  body,  which  the  divine  and  good  mind  ought  to  cherish,  all  other  desires, 
instincts,  and  appetites,  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  Manichaeans,  originate 
from  the  body  and  the  evil  soul,  and  are  therefore  vicious  and  impure.  Augus- 
tine, (de  moribus  Manichaeor.  L.  ii.  c.  17  &c.)  treats  of  this  signaculum  manuum, 
as  if  it  required  nothing  but  to  abstain  from  killing  animals  and  lacerating 
vegetables.  But  it  required  many  other  thing?,  which  Augustine  seems  [p.  854.] 
to  have  omitted,  lest  he  should  be  obliged  to  acknowledge  something  good  and 
commendable  in  the  Manichaean  discipline;  and  so  he  named  only  that,  which 
would  afford  opportunity  for  most  censure  and  vituperation. — First,  The  perfect 
Manichaean,  therefore,  following  the  example  of  Christ's  Apostles,  ought  to  di- 
vest himself  intirely  of  all  natural  affection  towards  parents,  children,  brothers, 
and  relatives;  and  also  to  suppress  the  love  of  life,  health,  and  comfort.  For 
the  love  of  kindred  originates  from  flesh  and  blood,  and  of  course  from  evil ; 
and  the  end  of  life  is  the  liberation  of  the  soul  from  its  prison,  which  the  wise 
should  rather  desire  than  fear.  Said  Faustus,  (L.  v,  c.  1.  2.  p.  140.):  Ego 
pafrem  dimisi  et  matrem,  uxorem,  filios  et  cetera,  quae  Evangelium  (so  he  calls 
the  system  of  moral  discipline,)  jubet.  -  -  Omnia  mea  dimisi,  patrem,  matrem, 
uxorem,  filios,  aurum,  argentum,  manducare,  bibere,  delicias,  voluptales.  Other 
proofs  may  be  gathered  from  the  testimonies  heretofore  adduced. — Secondly, 


362  Century  III. — Section  48. 

The  perfect  Maniehaean  ought  to  live  in  extreme  poverty,  and  neither  to  possess 
nor  desire  any  worldly  goods,  neither  gold,  nor  silver,  nor  furniture,  nor  home, 
nor  anything  whatever;  and  to  live  contentedly  on  a  slender,  sparing,  daily 
amount  of  food,  supplied  him  by  tliose  called  Auditors.  Said  Fauslus,  (L.  v. 
c.  1.  2.  p.  140.):  Ego  argentum  et  aurum  rejeci  (when  I  became  a  Manichaian,) 
et  aes  in  zonis  habere  destiti,  quotidiano  cibo,  nee  de  erastino  curans. — Vides  in 
me  Christi  beatitudines  illas,  vides  pauperem.  And  a  little  after:  Christus  dixit: 
Beati  pauperes;  et,  diviti  quacrenti  vitam  aeternam,  Vade,  vende  omnia  quae 
habes,  et  sequere  me.  We  may  here  remark  that  the  Manichoeans,  in  order  to 
prove  that  Christ  required  this  absolute  penury  of  all  things,  read  the  language 
of  tiie  Saviour,  Matt.  v.  3.  simply,  MAx-dpioi  oi  7n-w;:^oi,  (Blessed  are  the  poor;) 
omitting  the  words  rw  TrvtvfxArty  (in  spirit.)  And  Tyrbo,  (in  the  Acta  Archelai, 
\  9.  p.  16.)  says:  Si  quis  dives  est  in  hoc  raundo,  cum  exierit  de  corpore  suo, 
necesse  est,  eum  in  corpus  pauperis  injici.  -  -  -  Qui  aedificaverit  sibi  domum, 
dispergetur  in  omnia  corpora.  I  am  aware,  that  this  Tyrho  erred  in  some 
things;  but  in  reporting  the  precepts  of  the  Manichseans,  he  did  not  mistake. 
Augustine,  (de  moribus  ecclesiae  et  Manich.  L.  i.  c.  35.  p.  531.)  says:  Quid  ca- 
lumniamini,  quod  fideles  jam  baptismate  renovati  procreare  filios,  et  agros  ac 
domos,  peeuniamque  ullam  possidere  non  debeant.  -  -  Dicitis  catechuinenis 
licere  habere  pecuniam,  fidelibus  non  licere. —  Thirdly,  The  perfect  Maniehaean 
should  refrain  from  all  labor,  and  from  all  business  whatever;  and  should  spend 
his  life  in  uninterrupted  repose  and  contemplation.  He  should  therefore  not 
build  up,  nor  pull  down;  not  bake  bread,  nor  grind  in  the  mill;  not  till  the 
ground,  nor  reap  the  grain,  nor  engage  in  any  manual  labor  whatever.  Tyrho, 
(in  the  Acta  Archelai,  \  9.  p.  16,  17.)  having  said,  that  it  is  not  lawful  for  i\Iani- 
[p.  855.]  chaeans,  (he  means,  the  Elect,)  to  plant,  build,  reap,  put  grain  into  tiie 
mill,  or  bake  bread,  adds:  Aia  roZro  dTnipnTai  duroli  ipyov  7roi»a-xi.  Propter  hoc 
illicitum  est  apud  eos  opus  quoddara  facere.  And  hence  Augustine,  (de  utilitate 
credendi,  c.  1.  p.  34.)  says,  that  he  refused  to  pass  from  the  class  of  Auditors  to 
that  of  the  Elect  among  the  Manichaeans,  Ne  hujus  mundi  spem  atque  negotia 
dimitteret.  And  a  little  after,  he  says  that  he,  while  a  Maniehaean,  Spera 
gessisse  de  pulchritudine  uxoris,  de  pompa  divitiarum,  de  inanitate  honorum, 
ceterisque  voluptatibus.  Haec  omnia,  (he  says,)  cum  studiose  illos  audirem, 
cupere  et  sperare  non  desistebam.  Sed  fateor,  illos  sedulo  monere,  ut  ista  cave- 
antur.  The  reason  of  the  precept  is  obvious.  All  manual  labors  proceed  from 
solicitude,  and  are  subservient  to  the  desires  of  men;  but  all  solicitudes  are 
evil ;  and  therefore,  a  holy  man  should  neither  obey  them  nor  harbor  them. — 
Fourthly,  In  particular,  it  was  not  lawful  for  a  true  and  perfect  Maniehaean,  to 
pluck  the  fruit  from  trees,  to  strip  trees  of  leaves,  to  pull  up  plants,  shrubs,  and 
herbs,  or  to  do  violence  to  any  part  of  nature.  Of  this  obligation,  Augustine 
treats  in  many  places,  and  formally,  in  his  work  de  moribus  Manicliaeorum, 
(L.  ii.  c.  17  &c.)  where,  among  other  things,  he  says:  Poma  ipsi  non  decerpitis, 
herbamque  non  vellitis,  sed  tamen  ab  Auditoribus  vestris  decerpi  et  evelli  atque 
afferri  vobis  jubetis.  He  had  just  before  said:  Si  quis  non  imprudentia,  sed 
sciens  pomum,  foliumve  de  arbore  decerpat,  signaculi  corruptor  sine  ulla  dubi- 
tatione  damnabitur,  sed  omnino  (damnabitur)  si  arborem  radicitus  eruat.    And 


Christ  as  a  Savioi/r.  3(53 

(de  Haercs.  c.  46.  p.  12.):  Agnim  spinis  piirfj;iro,  iiefas  habent. — Elocti  nihil  in 
agris  operantes,  noc  poma  c;irpentes,  nee  saltim  folia  ulla  vellentes,  oxpoctant 
haee  arterri  usibus  suia  ab  Auditoribus  suis.  And,  (contra  Faustuni,  L.  xvi.  c. 
28.  p.  214.):  A  vobis  quisquis  vulserit  spicas,ex  traditione  jManieiiat-i  hoiiiicida 
deputatur.  This  puerile  precept  will  not  appear  very  strange  to  one  wl-II  ac- 
quainted  with  the  principles  of  their  system.  Tlie  Maniehaeans  supposed  all 
nature  to  be  animated,  or  that,  in  all  its  parts,  there  was  a  commixture  of  tiie 
celestial  elements  with  matter.  Thus  Manes  himself,  (Epist.  ad  filium  Mi-noch, 
apud  AugusL  Opus  imperf.  L.  iii.  in  a  passage  already  quoted,)  says:  Aiiimain 
cunfusam  esse  omnibus  corporibus  et  saporibus,  et  spcciebus  variis  cohaerere. 
And,  as  quoted  by  Alexander  of  Lycopolis,  (contra  Maiiichaeos,  p.  19.)  he  says: 
Uavra  vouj  la-tX.  Omnia  sunt  anima.  AugusLine,  (de  Haeres.  c.  46.  p.  11,  12.) 
says:  Herbas  atque  arbores  sic  putant  vivere,  ut  vitam,  quae  iilis  inest,  et  sen- 
tire  credant,  et  dolere,  cum  laeduntur,  nee  aliquid  inde  sine  cruciatu  corura 
quemquam  posse  vellere  aut  carpere.  Therefore,  in  the  opinion  of  this  sect, 
whoever  plucked  off  or  pulled  up  herbs,  apples,  leaves,  or  any  fruits,  not  only 
offered  violence  and  gave  pain  to  some  soul,  but  also  dislodged  it  from  its  place 
or  habitation.  There  was  also  another  and  a  graver  reason.  The  Maniehaeans 
were  persunded,  that  rational  human  souls,  portions  of  the  divine  light,  [p.  856.] 
if  not  sufticiently  purgated,  migrated  into  other  bodies,  and  also  into  trees,  herbs, 
and  plants :  of  this  we  shall  treat  hereafter.  Augustine,  (de  Haeres.  c.  46.  p.  12.) 
Kays :  Animas  et  in  pecora  redire  putant  et  in  omnia,  quae  radicibus  fixa  sunt, 
et  aluntur  in  terra.  Hence  it  might  be,  that  he  who  plucked  leaves,  or  an  ap- 
ple, or  a  fig,  or  pulled  up  an  herb,  might  be  equally  culpable  with  one  who  slew 
a  man.  And,  as  I  have  before  shown,  it  was  common  for  Maniehaeans  to  com- 
pare the  laceration  of  shrubs,  and  violence  done  to  trees  and  ears  of  corn,  with 
the  crime  of  homicide. — Fifthly,  Manes  had  the  same  reasons  for  strictly  forbid- 
ding his  more  ferfect  disciples,  from  pursuing  agriculture,  or  anything  auxiliary 
to  it;  although  he  allowed  the  Auditors  a  liberty  to  cultivate  the  ground.  Says 
Augustine,  (de  Haeres.  e.  46.  p.  12.):  Agriculturam,  quae  omnium  artium  est 
innocentissima,  tanquam  plurium  homicidiorura  ream  dementer  accusant.  And 
Tyrho,  (in  the  Acta  Archelai,  \  9.  p.  16.)  tells  us,  that  they  held  agriculture  in 
Buch  abhorrence,  that  they  said  of  usurers,  those  bloodsuckers  of  the  unfortu- 
nate,  that  they  sin  less  than  husbandmen.  And  Augustine,  (de  moribus  IMani- 
chaeor.  L.  ii.  c.  17.  p.  550.)  after  saying,  that  the  founder  of  the  sect  allowed  the 
Auditors  to  pursue  agriculture,  proceeds  thus:  Quanquam  saepe  etiam  dicere  au- 
deatisf(Eneratoreminnocentioremesse,quamrusticum.  Ma/?essupposed  the  whole 
earth  to  be  full  of  souls;  so  that  whoever  disturbs  their  repose,  commits  an  of- 
fence, as  it  were,  against  God  himself,  the  parent  of  those  souls. — Sixthly,  But 
it  was  a  much  greater  violation  of  the  signaculum  manuum,  to  slay  animals  of 
any  species  whatever.  This  was  not  allowable  even  for  the  Auditors;  although 
they  might  eat  the  flesh  of  animals  killed  by  others.  See  Augustine,  (de  Hae- 
res. c.  46.  p.  12.  and,  de  moribus  Manichaeor.  L.  ii.  c.  17.  p.  549.  and  many  other 
places.)  For  this  prohibition,  Maries  himself  gave  a  .special  reason.  Animals  camo 
into  this  world  from  the  kingdom  of  darknes.s,  or, as  was  shown  in  a  proper  place, 
they  fell  down  from  the  stars  where  the  demons  reside.    Tiierelbre  the  princes 


Century  III. — Section  48. 

of  darkness  are  attached  to  these  animals,  and  inflict  punishments  on  such  as 
kill  them.  Augustine,  (de  moribus  Manichaeor.  L.  ii.  c.  17.  p.  549.) :  Non 
deest  homini  callido  (Maneli)  adversus  indoctos  in  naturce  obscuritate  per- 
fugium.  Ca3lestes  enim,  ait,  principes,  qui  de  gente  tenebrarum  capti  atque 
vincti,  a  conditore  mundi  in  illis  ordinati  sunt  locis,  sua  quisque  possidet  in 
terra  animalia,  de  suo  scilicet  genere  ac  stirpe  venientia:  qui  peremptores 
eorum  reos  tenent,  nee  de  hoc  mundo  exire  permittunt,  pcenisque  illos  quibus 
possunt  et  cruciatibus  adterunt.  But  from  this  prohibition  of  killing,  they  ex- 
cepted  the  insects  which  annoy  men's  bodies,  fleas,  &c. ;  for  they  denied  that 
these  animals  came  from  the  skies,  and  accounted  them  the  filth  of  our  bodies. 
Augustine,  (1.  citato,  p.  550.) :  Quid  quod  a  nece  animalium  nee  vos  ipsi  in  pe- 
[p.  857.]  diculis,  in  pulicibus  et  cimicibus  temperatis.  Magnamque  hujus  rei 
defensionem  putatis,  quod  has  esse  sordes  nostrorum  corporum  dicitis.  Against 
this  opinion,  Augustine  argues  with  shrewdness. — Lastly;  strange  as  it  may 
appear  in  men  professing  to  be  strict  imitators  of  Christ,  they  forbid  the  giving 
of  bread  and  other  things,  to  the  poor,  who  were  not  Manichaeans.  But,  for 
this  inhumanity,  if  so  it  may  be  called,  they  had  their  reasons,  derived  from  the 
internal  principles  of  their  religion.  Augustine,  (de  moribus  Manichaeor.  L.  ii. 
c.  15.  p.  543.)  :  Hinc  est,  quod  mendicant!  l]/)raini,  qui  Manichaus  non  sit,  pa- 
nem,  vel  aliquid  frugum,  vel  aquam  ipsam,  quae  omnibus  vilis  est,  dari  prohibe- 
tis,  ne  membrum  Dei  (i.  e.  good  and  celestial  matter,)  quod  his  rebus  admixtuin 
est,  suis  peccatis  sordidatum  a  reditu  (ad  terram  lucis)  impediat.  But  to  free 
themselves  in  some  measure  from  the  odium  they  incurred  by  this  custom,  they 
allowed  money,  instead  of  bread,  to  be  given  to  the  needy.  Augustine,  (1.  cit. 
c.  16.  p.  547.):  Quae  cum  ita  sint,  etiam  panem  mendicanti  dare  prohibetis: 
^ensetis  tamen  propter  misericordiam,  vel  potius  propter  invidiam,  numraos  dari. 
Quid  hie  prius  arguam,  crudelitatem  an  vecordiam  ?  Beausohre,  (vol.  ii.  p.  786, 
&c.)  as  he  is  always  oflicious  in  behalf  of  the  Manichaeans,  so  he  labors  hard 
to  wipe  from  them  this  stain,  which  he  erroneously  thinks  to  be  worse  {flus  sur- 
prenante)  than  all  others.  But  this  excellent  man,  in  the  explication  of  this  mat- 
ter, commits  mistakes  which  show  that  even  great  men  may  err ;  and  he  adduces 
no  proof,  on  which  even  a  suspicion  can  be  raised,  that  Augustine,  whohad  lived 
nine  years  among  the  Manichaeans,  voluntarily  misstated  and  calumniated  them. 
Nor  is  Augustine  the  only  writer,  as  this  learned  man  supposes,  that  accuses 
the  Manichajans  of  this  crime.  To  pass  over  others,  Tbeodoret,  (Haeret.  Fabul. 
L.  i.  C.  26.  tom.  iv.  p.  213.)  says:   T«v   i't   In  ncvitrcK  yivo/ucvHV  J^t^fidX'S.ova-i  fiKctv- 

b-fu-nrUvy  T«f  uKiii  iivcti  xtyovm  B-tpATrtiAv.  Benignitatem  quae  exercetur  erga 
pauperes  reprehendunt,  dicentes,  earn  esse  cultum  materise.  By  vkh  or  materia, 
aa  has  been  shown,  and  as  Theodoret  had  just  before  stated,  the  Manichaeans 
were  accustomed  to  designate  the  Lord  of  matter,  or  the  Prince  of  darkness 
himself.  They  therefore  supposed,  that  to  give  food  to  a  poor  man,  not  a  Ma- 
nichaean,  (this  limitation  is  omitted  by  Theodoret,)  would  be  to  render  some 
honor  or  service  to  the  demon.  This  reason  appears  to  differ  from  that  assign- 
ed by  Augustine;  but  both  may  be  made  to  harmonize.  Those  who  were  not 
Manichaeans,  were  the  servants  and  subjects  of  the  Prince  of  darkness:  but  he 
who  aids  and  assists  the  servants  of  God's  enemy,  in  a  sense  serves  that  enemy. 


Christ  as  a  Saviour.  3(^5 

Moreover,  in  every  part  of  nnture,  duririfr  Umt  first  eonHict  between  the  n-ood 
and  the  evil  Principles,  some  portion  of  celestial  matter  became  intorinixcd  ; 
and  it  must  be  j^radually  separated  and  restored  to  its  original  state.  Such  a 
Reparation  is  happily  eifected  in  the  bodies  of  Manichivans,  whose  souls,  mind- 
ful of  their  duty,  withdraw  the  celestial  in  their  food  from  pollution,  [p.  858.] 
Says  Augysline,  (1.  cit.  p.  643.)  :  Cibi,  qui  de  frunribus  et  pomis  parantur,  (for 
flesh  is  altogether  evil,  and  contains  nothing  divine,)  si  ad  sancto.s,  id  est,  ad 
Manichaios  veniant,  per  eorum  castitatem,  et  orationem,  et  psalmos,  quicquid  in 
eis  est  luculentum  et  divinum  purgatur,  id  est,  ex  omni  parte  perfieitur,  ut  ad 
Tcgna  propria  sine  ulla  sordium  difficultate  referatur.  But  in  the  bodies  of  ser- 
vants of  the  Prince  of  darkness,  in  which  the  evil  soul  has  the  ascendancy,  such 
a  separation  is  hindered.  For  the  evil  soul  appropiates  to  itself  all  the  food 
they  take,  and  retains  the  particles  of  celestial  matter  in  bondage.  And  hence, 
a  holy  man  cannot  give  food  to  such  men.  Says  Aihandsins,  (Historia  Arianor. 
ad  Monachos,  0pp.  torn.  i.  p.  381.):  Uct^a  Mavixh-Ui;  i\ioc  Ivk  la-rlvy  dXXa  x.al 
iX^P^v  £3Ti  TTup'  duTcli  TO  i\iih  TTivitra..  Apud  Manichseos  nulla  est  commi- 
seratio,  resque  illis  odiosa  est  pauperem  (He  should  add :  non  Manichaeum) 
miserari.  This  was  apparently  very  criminal  in  them  :  but  it  was  less  so,  than 
it  appeared  to  be  ;  and  it  was  rather  superstitious,  than  criminal,  if  duly  consi- 
dered. For  first,  the  Manichoeans  were  kind  and  liberal  to  the  poor  of  their 
sect.  They  wholly  maintained  the  Elect  among  them,  as  will  be  shown  here- 
after ;  and  they  undoubtedly  succoured  those  of  the  Auditors  who  were  needy. 
But,  secondly,  their  Auditors  were  forbidden  to  give  to  the  indigent  of  other 
eects,  bread,  water,  and  those  aliments  which  spring  from  the  earth,  with  which 
ihey  supposed  some  portion  of  celestial  matter  to  be  mixed.  Yet,  tliirdly,  they 
might,  to  such  baggars  givefiesh.  For,  as  flesh  belonged  wholly  to  the  world  of 
darkness,  and  w\as  intirely  destitute  of  celestial  matter,  after  the  soul  left  it  at  the 
death  of  the  animals,  there  was  nothing  to  hinder  their  giving  it  to  them.  'Move- 
over,  fourthly,  it  was  lawful  to  give  such  persons  money,  with  which  they  could 
buy  food  if  they  wished.  As  I  have  said,  there  was  superstition  in  this  regula- 
tion ;  and  I  will  add,  foolish  and  ridiculous  superstition :  but  as  for  that  great 
sin,  which  their  enemies  found  here,  and  also  learned  men  of  this  age,  I  do  not 
see  it.  For  it  is  substantially  the  same,  to  give  a  person  money  with  which  ho 
can  buy  food,  as  to  give  the  food  itself. — I  have  placed  this  prohibition  among 
the  rules  of  the  severe  discipline  of  the  Manichasans,  but  in  reality  it  was  only" 
a  part  of  the  laxer  discipline,  or  a  rule  of  duty  for  those  called  Auditors.  For 
the  Elect  or  more  perfect,  were  absolute  paupers,  and  lived  entirely  on  the  gra- 
tuities of  the  Auditors.  They  had  neither  money,  nor  bread,  nor  houses,  nor 
barns,  nor  fields,  nor  anything  superfluous  ;  and  therefore,  they  could  not  give 
either  bread,  or  flesh,  or  money  to  mendicant.s. 

The  signaculum  of  the  bosom  required  perfect  chastity,  and  forbid  all  lust, 
unchastity,  and  even  marriage.  For  the  distinction  of  sexes  and  the  procreation 
of  children,  as  it  is  well  known,  the  Manichreans  believed  to  be  a  cunning  de- 
vice of  the  Prince  of  darkness,  by  which  souls  are  bound  up  in  bodies,  [p.  859.] 
the  empire  of  darkness  in  this  world  extended,  and  the  return  of  the  light,  or 
the  celestial  matter,  to  God,  impeded.     And,  therefore,  they  enjoined  upon  al\ 


3GG  Centunj  III.— Section  48. 

their  disciples  all  possible  continence  and  virginity,  and  upon  the  FiUct  they 
imposed  perfect  celibacy.  According  to  their  views,  whoever  procreates  a  body, 
begets  a  prison  for  a  celestial  soul ;  and,  by  the  gratification  of  lust,  he  serves 
the  Prince  of  all  evil.  Hence,  married  persons,  wishing  to  be  admitted  to  the 
rank  of  the  Elect.,  were  reqilired  forthwith  to  put  away  their  wives  and  hus- 
bands.  Fauslus,  (apud  August.  L.  v.  c.  1.  p.  140.)  says:  Omnia  mea  dimisi, 
patrem,  matrera,  uxorem,  liberos.  This  point  does  not  need  elaborate  proof, 
being  so  perfectly  well  known,  that  no  one  doubts  it.  In  place  of  all,  see  the 
passage  in  Faustus,  (L.  xxx.  c.  4.  p.  316.)  Some  one  objecting  to  him,  that 
the  Manichaeans  were  the  persons  prophetically  foretold  by  St.  Paul,  1  Timo. 
iv.  i :  Discedunt  a  fide,  intendentes  doctrinis  dajmoniorum,  prohibentes  nubere  ; 
Faustus  discusses  the  subject  largely,  and  denies  that  his  sect  prohibited  mar- 
riage ;  because,  so  strong  is  the  force  of  nature,  that  to  attempt  to  suppress  it, 
would  border  on  madness.  He  says :  Demens  profecto  ille,  non  tantum  stul- 
tus  putandus  est,  qui  id  existimet  lege  privata  prohiberi  posse,  quod  sit  publica 
concessum  ;  dico  autem  hoc  ipsum  nubere.  Yet  he  confesses,  that  they  exhorted 
the  people  to  avoid  matrimony:  Nos  hortamur  quidem  volentes,  ut  permaneant 
(coelibes,)  non  tamen  cogimus  invitos,  ut  accedant.  Novimus  enim,  quantum 
voluntas,  quantum  et  natural  ipsius  vis  etiam  contra  legem  publicam  valeat,  ne- 
dum  adversus  privatam,  cui  respondere  sit  liberum:  Nolo.  Nor  does  he  deny, 
that  absolute  chastity  was  required  of  the  Elect.  And  this  regulation  he  de- 
fends, by  the  words  of  Christ,  Matth,  xix.  12,  at  the  same  time  calling  Christ, 
Professionis  puellarum  coelibem  sponsum.  He  says :  Q,uid  de  magistro  ipso 
dicemus  ac  sanctimonii  totius  auctore  Jesu,  qui  tria  genera  taxans  spadonum, 
eis  palmam  attribuit,  qui  se  ipsos  spadones  fecerunt  propter  regnum  coelorum, 
significans  virgines  et  pueros,  qui  nubendi  ipsa  a  cordibus  suis  exsectu  cupidi- 
tate,  spadonum  vice  in  ejus  ecclesia  semper,  tanquam  in  domo  regia  conversen- 
tur.  Et  hoc  vobis  doctrina  videtur  daemoniorum  ?  From  this  difRcult  part  of 
his  discipline,  Manes  exempted  the  common  people,  who  were  called  Auditors. 
Respecting  the  milder  discipline  appointed  for  the  Auditors,  we  shall  speak 
when  we  come  to  treat  of  that  order  of  persons.  Some  parts  of  it,  however, 
have  already  been  cursorily  noticed. 

§  XLIX.      The  Return  of  holy  Souls  to  the  World  of  Light.      So 

many  souls  as  receive  Jesus  Christ  for  the  Son  of  God  and  Savior, 
and,  forsalving  the  worship  of  the  Prince  of  darlvness  and  his  as- 
sociates, serve  only  the  Father  of  Light,  and  obey  with  all  their 
[p.  860.]  might  the  perfectly  holy  law  enacted  by  Christ,  and 
constantly  resist  the  desires  of  the  evil  soul ;  are  becoming  gra- 
dually purged  from  the  pollutions  of  vicious  matter.  This  pro- 
cess, indeed,  the  Prince  of  darkness,  both  personally  and  by  his 
ministers  and  satellites,  strives  with  all  his  power  to  retard  :  But 
the  Holy  Spirit,  resident  in  the  ether,  aids  the  struggling  souls, 
that  they  may  more  easily  escape  his  snares  and  overcome  the 


Jicturn  of  Souls  to  Heaven.  307 

perpetual  tcmptations.(')  And  to  tliosc  souls  which  occasiouaViy 
succumb  and  give  the  reins  to  the  evil  soul,  as  is  not  nneomnion, 
the  gate  of  sorrow  and  repentance  is  open,  by  which  the  pardon 
of  their  offences  may  be  obtained  from  God.('')  Yet  the  entire 
purgation  of  souls  cannot  be  effected  in  the  body.  Therefore, 
these  souls,  Avhen  released  from  the  body,  must  undergo  a  two- 
fold lustration  after  deatli ;  the  first  by  pure  water,  and  the  second 
by  fire.  That  is,  they  are  first  elevated  by  the  sun's  rays,  and 
pass  into  the  moon,  which  is  composed  of  good  water :  in  that 
they  are  purified  during  fifteen  days,  and  then  they  proceed  to 
the  sun,  the  good  fire  of  which  entirely  takes  away  what  defile- 
ment remains ;  and  thence  they  go  perfectly  clean  and  bright  to 
their  native  country.(^)  And  the  body,  wliich  they  left  on  the 
earth,  being  composed  of  evil  matter,  returns  to  its  original  state, 
and  will  never  be  resuscitated. (^) 

(1)  That  the  Manichceans  believed  the  Holy  Spirit,  resident  in  the  air,  and 
God  in  general,  to  aid  and  assist  souls  conflicting  with  the  Prince  of  darkness, 
the  body  and  the  evil  soul,  in  order  to  their  victory,  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
Fauslus,  (L.  XX.  c.  1.  p.  237.)  mentions:  Vires  ac  spiritalem  profusioncm  Spiri- 
tus  Snncti,  quam  (dicit)  tertiara  Majestatem.  And  Manes  himself,  in  the  be- 
ginning of  his  EpistolaFundamenti,  (apud  August.  Disput.  i.  cum  Felice,  p.  341.) 
says :  Pietas  Spiritus  Sancti  intima  vestri  pectoris  adaperiat,  ut  ipsis  oculis  vi- 
deatis  animas  vestras.  And  Secundinus,  a  Manicha3an,  (in  his  Epist.  ad  Au- 
gust. §  1.  p.  260.)  says  much  about  the  aid,  which  all  the  throe  divine  Persons 
afford  to  good  souls,  against  the  efforts  and  the  machinations  of  the  Prince  of 
evil.  After  giving  thanks  to  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  af- 
fording him  an  opportunity  for  a  discussion  with  Augustine,  he  proceeds  thus  : 
Nee  mirum  :  Sunt  enim  (Pater,  Filius,  Spiritus  Sanctus)  ad  omnia  bona  praes- 
tanda  et  ad  omnia  mala  arcenda  satis  aptissimi,  quique  tuam  benevolentiam  suis 
defendant  propugnaculis,  eripiantque  ab  illo  malo — quod  paratum  est,  ut  ve- 
niat.  -  -  Nam  dignus  es,  qui  ab  iisdem  talia  munera  consequaris,  iidemque  veri- 
tatis  tuse  nutritores  ef!iciantur,  vere  lucerna,  quam  in  cordis  tui  can-  [p.  861.] 
delabro  dextra  posuit  veritatis,  ne  furis  adventii  thesauri  tui  dilapidetur  patri- 
monium,  -  -  illumquc  a  nobis  repellant  atrocem  spiritum,  qui  hominibus  timo- 
rem  immittit  et  perfidiam,  ut  animas  avertat  ab  angusto  tramite  Salvatoris  : 
cujus  omnis  impetus  per  illos  principes  funditur,  contra  quos  se  Apostolus,  in 
Ephesiorum  Epistola  (Ephes.  vi.  12.)  certamen  subiisse  fatctur.  -  -  Hoc  Paul  us, 
hoc  ipse  teslatur  Manichccus.  Non  ergo  armorum  pugna  est,  sed  spirituum,  qui 
iisdem  utuntur.  Pugnant  autem  animarum  gratia.  Horum  in  medio  posifa  est 
anima,  cui  a  principio  natura  sua  dedit  victoiiam.  Hacc  si  una  cum  Spiritn  vir- 
tutem  feceret  ( — The  Manichtcans,  therefore,  did  not  suppose  the  saints  alono 
and  unaided,  repressed  the  instincts  of  nature  and  the  motions  of  the  evil  soul, 
but  they  had  the  Holy  Spirit  assisting  them—)  habcbit  cum  co  vitam  pcrpctuam, 


368  Century  IIL—Scction  49. 

jlludque  possidebit  regnum,  ad  quod  Dominus  noster  invitat.  Nor  does  A\u 
gusline  deny,  that  the  Manichjeans  had  no  doubts  of  the  grace  afforded  to  men 
in  conflict  with  the  evil  Principle,  strengthening,  assisting,  and  confirming  them. 
For,  in  repelling  the  calumny  of  the  Pelnginns,  who  charged  catholic  Christians 
with  having  the  same  views  of  human  nature  with  the  Manicha3ans,  (contra 
duas  Epi.'^tolas  Pelagianor.  L.  ii.  c.  2.  0pp.  torn.  x.  p.  286.)  he  says ;  Manichaei 
mentis  natura;  bona),  Pclagiani  autem  meritis  voluntatis  bonae,  perhibent  divi- 
nitus  subveniri ;  Illi  dicunt :  Debet  hoc  Deus  laboribus  mcmbrorum  suorum  ; 
isti  dicunt :  Debet  hoc  Deus  virtutibus  servoruni  suorum.  Augustine  appre- 
hended the  sentiments  of  the  Mauichaeans  correctly.  For,  as  they  supposed 
that  the  good  soul  did  not  come  voluntarily  into  this  world  and  into  these 
bodies,  but  involuntarily,  and  by  a  sad  misfortune  ;  and  as  they  moreover  be- 
lieved the  rational  soul  to  be  a  portion  of  the  divine  nature,  or  of  eternal  light, 
and  therefore  ever  remaining  entire,  and  neither  vitiated  nor  capable  of  viti- 
ation ;  consistency  required  them  to  maintain,  that  God  was  compelled  by 
justice,  to  aid  these  holy  souls  toiling  in  bodies  and  combatting  with  vile  mat- 
ter. It  is  therefore  certain,  that  the  Manichaeans  promised  divine  grace  and  the 
assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  their  people.  But  in  what  w\ay  and  manner 
the  Holy  Spirit  aids  souls,  or  with  what  energy  he  illumines  them,  and  by  what 
means  he  moves  them,  I  do  not  find  anywhere  explained  ;  and  perhaps,  the  Ma- 
nichaeans gave  no  explanations.  They  were  ignorant  of  spiritual  substances, 
and  supposed  both  the  human  soul  and  the  Holy  Spirit  to  consist  of  a  subtile 
kind  of  matter  or  of  light.  And  therefore,  in  a  manner  very  different  from  what 
we  believe,  they  must  have  supposed  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  on  minds,  or 
moves  and  guides  them. 

(2)  The  Manichaeans  ascribed  great  efficacy  to  repentance,  in  restoring 
souls  accidentally  lapsing,  and  in  averting  the  retributions  of  the  divine 
Judge.  This  has  been  already  demonstrated  from  some  passages  in  Avgus- 
tine.  I  will  now  explain  the  subject  more  fully,  and  confirm  it  by  a  splendid 
passage  from  a  celebrated  and  ingenious  Manichaan. — Manes  made  repentance 
[p.  862.]  to  consist  in  sorrow  for  sins  unintentionally  committed.  For,  as 
we  have  showed,  the  soul,  which  is  a  portion  of  eternal  light,  or  of  the  di- 
vine nature,  and  absolutely  unchangeable, — cannot  sin  in  the  proper  and  true 
sense.  But  it  is  said  to  sin,  w'hen  it  suffers  the  evil  soul  to  follow  and  obey  its 
lusts  and  instincts :  and  whenever  it  does  so,  it  increases  and  confirms  its  own 
filthiness  and  servitude.  And  this  negligence  is  regarded  by  God,  just  as  if  it 
had  consented  to  the  criminal  deeds  of  the  evil  soul ;  which,  however,  was  im- 
possible from  its  nature.  Moreover,  what  is  said  of  the  soul's  sinning,  must  be 
understood  especially  of  enlightened  souls;  that  is,  of  such  as  have  attained  a 
knowledge  of  the  truth,  or,  as  the  Manichaeans  speak,  such  as  have  a  knowledge 
of  ihemsehes ;  such  as  have  learned,  either  from  the  instruction  and  books  of 
Manes,  or  in  some  other  way,  the  origin  of  this  world,  the  distinctness  of  good 
and  evil,  the  source  of  evil,  their  own  divine  nature,  &:c.  For,  souls  remaining 
in  darkness,  and  in  ignorance  of  these  things,  go  astray,  indeed,  and  have  no 
prospect  of  salvation  after  death  ;  yet  they  do  not  properly  commit  sin,  because 
no  one  can  transgress  a  law»  of  which  he  has  no  knowledge.    Therefore  peni. 


Return  of  Souls  to  Heaven.  3(59 

tence,  with  Manicliaeans,  was  the  sorrow  of  an  enli^hleyied  soul,  arishifr  from  a 
co7isciousness  of  negligence  in  repressing  the  desires  of  the  evil  soul.  The  effect 
of  this  sorrow  is,  that  it  exempts  from  those  punishments  in  hell,  which  souls 
merit,  by  consenting-  to  the  desires  of  the  evil  soul,  after  they  have  received  a 
knowledge  of  the  truth.  Repentance,  therefore,  does  not  purgate  the  soul,  and 
open  the  way  for  its  salvation  or  return  to  heaven  ;  nor  does  it  free  the  soui 
from  the  discomfort  of  a  migration  into  another  body  :  but  it  removes  the  feai 
of  hell,  or  induces  God  to  remit  the  penalty  of  hell-fire  to  the  sinner.  Says 
Secundimis,  (in  his  Epist.  ad  AvgusL  §  2.  p.  369.)  :  Si  anima  a  spiritu  vitiorum 
(so  he  called  the  evil  soul,m  which  all  the  desires  and  appetites  reside,)  incipial 
trahi  et  eonseiitiat,  ac  post  consensum  i)(]cnitudinem  gerat,  habebit  harum  sordi- 
um  indulgentiie  fontem.  Carnis  enim  connuixtione  ducitur,  non  propria  volun- 
tate.  At  si  cum  seipsam  cognoverit,  consentiat  malo,  et  non  se  armet  contra 
inimicum,  voluntate  sua  peccavit.  Quam  si  iterum  pudeat  errasse,  paratum  in- 
veniet  misericordiarum  Auctorem.  Non  enim  punitur,  quia  peccavit,  sed  quia 
de  peccato  non  doluit.  At  si  cum  eodera  peccato  sine  venia  reccdat,  tunc  ex- 
cludetur  -  -  tunc  ibit  cum  diabolo  ad  ignem  originis  ipsius. 

(3)  Of  the  return  of  the  souls  purgated  in  the  body,  to  the  world  of  light, 
Augustine  nnd  the  other  adversaries  of  the  Manichssans,  treat  only  briefly  nnd 
generally.  Avgustiiie,  for  instance,  (de  Heeres.  c.  46.  p.  11.)  says:  Quidquid 
undique  purgatur  luminis  per  quasdam  naves,  quas  esse  lunam  et  solera  volunt, 
regno  Dei,  tanquara  propriis  sedibus,  reddi  putant.  Quas  itidem  naves  de  sub- 
stantia Dei  pura  perhibent  fabricatas.  -  -  Naves  autem  illas,  id  est,  duo  coeli 
luminaria,  ita  distinguunt,  ut  lunam  dicant  fjictam  ex  aqua  bona,  solem  vero  ex 
igne  bono.  And  very  nearly  the  same  statement  is  given,  not  only  by  [p.  863.] 
Augustine  in  several  other  places,  but  also  by  the  other  writers,  both  histori- 
ans and  disputants.  The  Manichaeans,  therefore,  supposed  the  sun  and  moon 
to  be  two  ships,  in  which  souls  purgated  from  their  filth,  were  transported  to 
their  country:  the  sun  they  called  the  greater  ship,  and  the  moon  the  lesser. 
But  in  both  ships,  the  disembodied  souls  had  to  undergo  a  severe  lustration, 
before  they  were  restored  to  their  former  happy  state,  or  were  borne  to  their 
desired  haven.  For,  although  the  soul  while  in  the  body  should  spare  no  efforta 
or  diligence  in  expelling  and  ejecting  the  filth  of  depraved  matter,  it  will  never 
depart  pure  and  luminous  out  of  this  dark  and  filthy  bod}^  Its  grosser  filth  is 
therefore  washed  off  in  the  good  water,  of  which  the  moon  is  composed.  But  ita 
interior  filth,  or  the  minuter  particles  of  malignant  matter,  which  have  penetrat- 
ed deeper  into  the  soul  and  have  vitiated,  so  to  speak,  its  very  marrow,  requires 
a  severer  lustration  by  the  good  fire,  of  which  the  sun  is  composed  :  and  this  fire, 
being  kindred  with  that  light  of  which  the  soul  consists,  permeates  and  pervades 
it  perfectly,  and  consumes  what  there  is  remaining  of  the  evil  elements  within. 
And  thus  the  mind,  being  first  washed,  and  then  roasted,  becomes  bright  and 
shining,  and  therefore  worthy  to  return  to  its  pristine  glory.  And  as  Christ 
dwells  in  the  sun  and  in  the  moon,  as  we  have  before  showed,  hence  it  is  mani- 
fest that  He,  since  his  departure  out  of  our  world,  is  a  Saviour  of  souls ;  He 
perfects  their  purgation  begun  in  this  life,  after  they  leave  the  body. 

What  the  ancient  writers  state  generally,  in  regard  to  the  return  of  souls  to 
VOL.  II.  25 


370  Century  IIL—Sedion  49. 

the  world  of  light,  Txjrbo  describes  more  pnrticuhirly  and  minutely,  in  the  Acta 
Disputationis  Art-helai  cum  Manete.     But  tliese  Acta,  as  published  in  Latin  by 
Laur.  Alex.  Zaccagni,  and  by  Jo.  Alb.  Fabricius,  (in  the  0pp.  Hipjiolyii,  torn,  ii.) 
are  much  corrupted,  and  greatly  deformed  by  numerous  blemishes.  And  hence, 
Efiplianius,  who  had  access  to  earlier  and  purer  Greek  copies  of  these  Acts, 
should  be  consulted  and  compared,  in  order  to  a  better  understanding  of  thi.** 
amusingfable  o{  Manes,  or  rather  of  the  Magi,  his  master.     Tyrho,  (§  8.  p.  12. 
&c.)  thus  begins  :  Cum  venisset  Filius  Dei,  machinam  quandam  concinnavit  ad 
fcalutem  animarum,  id  est,  rotam  statuit  habentem  duodecim  urceos,  quae  rota 
per  liaiic  sphairam  verlilur  hauriens  animas  morientium,  quasque  luminare  ma- 
jus,  id  est,  sol  radiis  suis  adimcns  (in  the  Greek  of  Epiphanhia,  "Xa/iuyv,  sumejis, 
allrahens,)  purgat  et  lunae  tradit,  et  ita  adimpletur  lante  disous.     Naves  enim 
vel  translatorias  cymbas  esse  dicit  (Manes)  duo  ista  luminaria.     Tyrho  tells 
wonders  !     For,  what,  pray,  is  that  wheel,  furnished  with  twelve  water-pots,  and 
"whirled  and  turned  about  by  a  sphere,  which  the  Son  of  God  constructed? 
liut  Epiphanius,  (Hseres.  Ixvi.  ^  10.  p.  626.)  partially  explains  the  enigma,  and 
corrects  the  errors  of  Tyrho,  or  perhaps,  of  his  translator  and  transcribers.     I 
[p.  864,]  will  give  only  Petavius'  Latin  version  of  Epiphanius,  which  is  sullici- 
ently  faithful:  Sapientia  ilia  sidera  in  coelo  collocavit  -  -  et  illam  duodecim  de- 
mentis, ut  Graecis  placet,  constantem  machinam  produxit.  (,««;^flv«v  ^la  twv  J'uS'mai 
cToi)(Uct^^    Quibus  ab  dementis  affirmat  mortuorum  hominum  et  aliorum  ani- 
malium  animas  in  altum  splendidas  et  collucentes  evehi,  unde  in  scapham  feran- 
tur.  Solem  quippe  et  lunam  navigia  quandam  esse  existimat.  We  here  remark : — 
Eirsl,  The  erection  of  the  machine  in  question,  is  not  here  ascribed  to  the  Son  of 
God,  as  it  is  by  Tijrbo,  but  to  the  wisdom  of  the  Being  who  placed  the  stars  in  the 
sky,  or  the  Being  called  the  Living  Spirit  by  the  Manichaeans;  a  very  dilTerent 
personage  from  the  Son  of  God. — Secondly,  There  is  no  mention  of  a  wheelj 
nor  of  twelve  water-pots,  but  only  of  a  machine  composed  of  twelve  elements. 
The  words  rota  and  urceus  were  metaphorical  terras,  here  used  by  the  Manichae- 
ans in  the  manner  of  the  Persians.     In  place  of  them  Epiphanius  gives  the 
proper  terms. —  Thirdly,  The  machine  is  the  same  that   the  Greeks  mention. 
This  leads  us  to  believe  it  to  be  the  heavens;  which  the  Manichaeans  compared 
to  a  wheel,  because  the  heavens  rotate  or  turn  around  like  a  wheel.     And  this 
being  admitted,  it  is  at  once  evident,  that  the  twelve  elements  {a-Toi^iia)  must  be 
the  twelve  celestial  signs,  which  the  Manichaeans  compared  to  water-pots.    This 
conjecture  was  before  made  by  Beausobre,  (vol.  ii.  p.  503.)  but  upon  other 
grounds:  for  he  did  not  call  in  Epiphanius  to  aid  him,  who,  as  I  suppose,  e*. 
tablishes  the  point.     If  there  were  room  for  it,  and  my  plan  would  allow  it,  I 
could  show  from  the  Greek  writers,  that  the  celestial  signs  were  by  them  called 
crci^tia  or  elements. — Fourthly,  These  twelve  elements  take  up  the  purified 
eouls,  as  they  leave  the  body,  and  bear  them  to  the  moon,  there  to  be  purgat- 
cd.     This  then  was  the  opinion  of  the  Manichaeans:  That  the  better  souls, 
which  had  carefully  attended  to  their  purgation  while  in  the  body,  were  borne 
by  the  orb  of  signs,  the  Zodiac,  as  the  Greeks  named  it,  up  to  the  moon :  and, 
to  enable  them  more  easily  and  expeditiously  to  perform  the  journey,  they  were 
aided  by  the  light  and  influence  of  the  stars.     Nor  was  Manes  alone  in  this  be- 


Return  of  Souls  to  Heaven.  871 

lief:  For  some  pliilosopliors,  and  some  sects  of  Gnostics,  bclii-vod  lliat  souls 
returned  to  God,  or  to  their  teleslinl  country,  along  tlie  oib  of  si(rna.  Soe  Clc- 
viens  Alexand.  (Stroniat.  L.  v.  p.  538.)  who  thinks  Plalo  \v;is  of  this  opinion : 
and  Macrubius,  (in  Suniniuui  Scipionis,  L.  i.  c.  12.  p.  GO.  61.) — Let  us  now  foU 
low  tile  souls  escaping  froni  the  body.  Their  {irst  station  was  in  tlie  moon  : 
wliich,  being  a  sea  of  celestial  water,  was  admirably  fitted  to  wa!>li  of!"  the  exter- 
nal filth  of  souls.  Fifteen  days  the  souls  swam  in  this  celestial  oce.m :  and 
when  these  days  terminated,  the  moon  emptied  itself,  by  transferring  the  well 
washed  souls  to  the  sun,  to  be  more  perfectly  lustrated.  On  this  subject,  Tyrho 
IB  not  sufiiciently  explicit;  but  Epiphamus,{\.  cit.  \  10.  p.  62G.)  iiappily  explains 
it,  thus:  Navigium  minus  pro  lunae  cresccntis  spatio  onus  quiiidecim  diebns  ve- 
hit,  idque  demum,  confecto  post  xv.  diem  cursu,  majus  in  navigium,  [p.  8G5.] 
solem  videlicet,  exponit. — This  puerile  fable  was  invented  by  the  Magi,  or  by 
Manes,  to  explain  the  cause  of  the  waxing  and  waning  of  the  moon.  These 
subtle  philosophers,  observing  that  the  moon  was  sometimes  luminous  and 
sometimes  dark,  that  it  increased  and  decreased ;  and,  from  their  consummate 
ignorance  of  astronomy,  being  unable  to  ascertain  the  cause  of  these  changes 
in  the  moon's  appearance, — explained  this  great  mystery  to  their  disciples, 
by  ascribing  it  to  the  return  of  souls  to  the  world  of  light.  The  moon  in 
creases  and  becomes  luminous,  according  to  these  acute  men,  when  souls,  those 
particles  of  light,  are  congregated  there  in  great  numbers;  and  it  decreases  and 
loses  its  light,  when  it  transfers  to  the  sun  these  shining  souls,  which  illumia- 
ed  its  waves.  Says  Tyrho,  (1.  cit.  p.  13.) :  Cum  repleta  fuerit  Luna,  transfretare 
animas  ad  sub>iolanam  partem,  et  ita  Apocrysin  detrimentum  (luna)  patitur,  cum 
onere  fuerit  relevata,  et  iterum  repleri  cymbam  et  rursus  exonerari,  dum  liauri- 
untur  per  urceos  animae.  The  moon  was  said,  by  the  Greek  Astronomers,  to 
make  its  Apocrysin,  when  it  became  old  or  waned.  Epiphanius  states  the  same 
thing,  (1.  cit.  c.  22,  p.  G39.)  :  Plena  est  alias  luna,  alias  luce  privatur,  quod  cam 
animae  repleant.  Also  Alexander  of  Lycopolis,  (contra  Manichaeos,  p.  15.)  and 
8ivrpUcius,  (comment,  in  Epictet.  p.  1G7.)  and  many  others. — Were  these  per- 
sons worthy  of  high  commendation  from  learned  men,  for  their  knowledge  of 
philosophy  and  their  acumen,  and  to  be  placed  above  the  ancient  Christians  in 
intelligence'? — After  fifteen  days  spent  in  the  moon,  the  moon  approached  the 
Bun  ;  and  then  the  souls  passed  from  the  lesser  ship  into  the  greater,  the  sun, 
where  they  sustained  a  new  and  more  thorough  purgation.  How  long  a  timo 
was  required  for  this  second  lustration,  I  do  not  find  any  where  stated.  The 
tediousness  of  it  was  relieved  by  the  agreeable  society  which  they  enjoyed  in 
the  sun.  For  Christ  himself,  the  Saviour  of  souls,  was  present  in  the  sun ;  and 
besides  him,  many  celestial  beings,  eminent  for  their  virtues.  I  shall  hereafter  cite 
a  splendid  passage  from  the  seventh  Book  of  Manes'  Thesaurus,  which  will  con- 
firm a  large  part  of  these  statements.  The  allotted  time  having  pas.sed,  the  sun 
transferred  the  souls  to  their  native  country,  the  world  of  light.  Says  Tyrbo 
(in  the  Acta  Archelai,  p.  13,):  Cum  igitur  luna  (here  is  an  error  of  Trjrho  or 
the  transcriber:  it  should  read:  Sol,  the  sun,)  onus  quod  gerit,  animnrum  .saecu- 
lis  (tc7j  'Aiu<ri,  the  JEons,  as  the  Gnostics  called  them,  agreeing  in  many  thinga 
with  Manei,)  tradiderit  Patris,  permanent  ilkc  in  columnu  gloria)  {iy  t^  o-tJa» 


372  Century  III.— Section  49. 

ri^s  <fc^«s,;  quod  vocatur  aer  perfectus.  Hie  autcm  aer  ( — The  Latin  translator, 
wlio  often  blunders,  here  incorrectly  rend :  av\\f.  and  therefore  translated  it;  Yir 
ferfeclus  ;  which  makes  no  sense.  In  Epiphanius,  the  reading  is  di,p — )  est  co- 
lumna  lucis,  repleta  est  enim  mundarum  animarum.  By  this  air,  in  whicli  the 
happy  souls  dwell,  undoubtedly,  must  be  understood,  that  which  Pholius,  (Bibli- 
othcca  Cod.  clxxix.  p.  405.  406.)  from   Agaphis  a  ]\[anichaean,  thus  describes: 

[p.  86G.]  QtoXoyu   tfg   kui   tup  ai?u.  Kiova   livTov  Khi   av^pwTroV   i^vuvwv.      AerfcUl  ve- 

ro  {Agaphis)  tanquam  Deum  praedicat,  columnam  eum  et  liominera  cum  laude 
vocans.  Epiphanius  expresses  the  views  of  Tyrbo,  or  rather  of  Manes,  more  con- 
cisely and  more  exactly,  thus  :  Solem  vero  sive  majorem  illam  navim  in  aeter- 
nam  vitam  ( — In  the  Greek  it  is  :  In  rdv  T^g  fa)«ff  dtwi/a.  that  is  ;  in  aeonem  vitae. 
For  the  Gnostics  and  the  Manichaeans  apply  the  name  of  JEons,  not  only  to 
the  eternal  and  unchangeable  Beings  descended  from  God,  but  sometimes  also 
to  their  residence  or  habitation.  This  JEon  vilae,  therefore,  is  the  region  where 
is  true  and  never  ending  life — )  ct  terram  beatorum  animas  transmittere  putant. 
In  another  passage,  Q  22.  p.  640.)  Epiphanius  neatly  and  vivaciously  expresses 
the  thing  thus:  A  luna  tanquam  minori  navigio  animas  exonerari  putat  et  intra 
solem  recipi  atque  in  aevum  beatorum  ( — So  Petavius  translates  the  Greek  : 
in  Tov  Twv  /uaKapcev  duova,)  expoui.  What  is  here  called  aeon  vilae  and  aevum 
heatorujn,  we  have  found  Tyrbo  calling  a-rvxcv,  columna  gloria  et  lucis,  and  aerem 
perfecium.  Beausobre  supposes  this  pillar  to  be  the  millnj  way:  in  which,  as  we 
learn  from  the  Somnium  Scipionis  of  Cicero,  and  its  expositor  Macrobius,  many 
of  the  ancients  supposed  the  happy  souls  to  reside.  But  I  do  not  attribute 
much  weight  to  this  conjecture.  Manes  himself,  (in  the  seventh  Book  of  his 
Thesaurus,  from  which  Augustine  gives  a  long  extract,  in  his  treatise  de  natura 
boni,  c.  44.  p.  366.  367.)  describes  the  sun  and  moon:  Naves  esse  lucidas,  qute 
ad  evectationem  animarum  atque  ad  sua:,  patriae  transfretationem  sunt  prsepara/- 
tfe.  Therefore,  according  to  the  founder  of  the  sect,  souls  return  to  their  native 
country.  But  that  is  the  world  of  light,  from  which  they  came  down,  by  com- 
mand of  God,  to  combat  with  the  Prince  of  darkness ;  and  it  is  not  the  milky 
way,  to  which  the  description  of  the  world  of  light  is  altogether  inapplicable. 

(4)  That  God  will  resuscitate  human  bodies,  the  Manichaeans  could  not 
possibly  believe.  For  bodies  are  works  of  the  Prince  of  darkness,  composed  of 
depraved  base  matter,  and  the  prison-houses  of  good  souls;  and  if  God  should 
restore  them  to  the  purgated  and  liberated  souls,  he  w-ould  strengthen  the  em- 
pire of  his  enemy,  and  involve  good  minds  in  new  perils,  calamities  and  toils. 
Says  Theodoret,  (Haeret.  Fabul.  L.  i.  c.  26.  p.  214.)  :  T»v  twp  aw/udrcov  avda-nta-tv 
(Of  juuB-ov  lK^d\\ov<nv.  Mortuorum  vero  corporum  resurrectionem  tanquam  fa- 
bulam  rejiciunt.  And  Augustine,  (de  Ilaeres.  c.  46.  p.  13.)  :  Christum  novissi- 
mis  temporibus  venisse  dicunt  ad  animas,  non  ad  corpora  liberanda.  The  same 
testimony  is  given  by  all  writers  concerning  the  Manichaeans  and  their  affairs. 
And  to  avoid  the  force  of  the  declarations  of  holy  Scripture  respecting  the  re- 
surrection of  the  body,  they  either  pronounced  those  declarations  interpolations 
by  imposters,  or  explained  them  mystically,  of  the  renovation  of  souls  by  means 
of  divine  truth.  Augustine,  (contra  Faustum,  L.  iv.  c.  2.  p.  140.) :  Dicitis, 
[p.  867.]  nunc  esse  resurrectionem  tantummodor.nimarum  perpraedicationem  veri- 


Fate  of  iiu pur  gated  Souls.  373 

tatis,  corporum  autom,  quam  praedieaverunt  Apostoli,  futuram  nepfalis.  (Com- 
pare L.  X.  c.  3.  p.  157.)  Sec  also  the  extract  from  Agapius  a  Maiiicliaean,  in 
Pholiuii,  Bibliotlieea  Cod.  elxxix.  p.  404.) 

§  L.  Condition  of  unpnrsratod  Souls  after  Death.  The  Souls  that 
were  ignorant  of  the  saving  truth,  or  tliat  neglected  tlieir  purgation 
while  in  the  body,  or  that  committed  certain  great  crimes,  would, 
after  their  exit  from  their  former  bodies,  pass  into  other  bodies, 
either  of  animals,  or  trees,  or  plants,  or  of  something  else  ;  until 
they  shall  fully  expiate  their  guilt,  and  become  prepared  to  enter 
on  their  celestial  journey.  In  this  matter,  divine  justice  will  re- 
gard the  difterent  merits  of  individuals,  and  will  assign  purer  and 
better  bodies  to  the  more  innocent,  and  more  uncomfortable  and 
filthy  habitations  to  the  more  polluted  and  deformed. (')  Heavier 
punishments  Avill  fall  on  the  souls  which  either  contemptuously 
rejected  the  truth  when  presented  to  them,  or  persecuted  its 
friends  and  professors,  or  defiled  themselves  with  crimes  of  the 
higher  order.  For,  on  leaving  the  body,  such  souls  will  be  de- 
livered over  to  the  princes  of  darkness  dwelling  in  the  stars,  to 
be  tortured  and  punished  by  them,  in  proportion  to  their  offences, 
in  the  bad  fire  situated  beyond  our  earth.  And  yet  these  pun- 
ishments of  hell  are  to  have  an  end.  For,  after  a  certain  time, 
determined  by  God,  has  been  spent  in  hell,  these  souls  will  be 
sent  again  into  this  our  world,  and  be  put  into  other  bodies,  to 
commence  as  it  were  a  new  course,  and  to  resume  with  more  fer- 
vor  the  purgation  which  they  neglected  in  their  former  life.('^) 

(1)  The  migration  of  souls  into  other  bodies,  ia  one  of  the  principal  dog-mag 
of  Manes  :  and  it  is  a  doctrine  indispensable  to  his  system.  For  as  God  is  ex- 
tremely desirous  that  all  the  particles  of  light,  or  all  the  souls,  which  by  a  sad 
misfortune  have  become  connected  with  material  bodies,  may  be  restored  to 
their  original  state  ;  and  as  the  greatest  part  of  these  souls  neglect  the  purga- 
tion prescribed  by  Christ,  and  give  way  to  the  lusts  of  the  body  and  of  the  evil 
soul ;  it  is  necessary  that  divine  goodness  should  afibrd  them  opportunity  to 
awake  and  become  vigilant,  and  should  in  various  wnys  attempt  to  refurm  t.hem. 
This  doctrine,  moreover,  as  well  ns  many  others.  Manes  received  from  the  IMagi, 
his  instructors  ;  for  they  all,  as  Porphyry  informs  us,  (de  abstinentia  a  car-  [p.  86"8.] 
nibus,  L.  iv.  \  16.  p.  165,  from  Euhuli  Historia  Mithrae,)  held  the  doctrine  of  the 
transmigration  of  souls  as  most  sacred :  Ai>,«*  iravroiv  ia-ri  twv  Trftuirwv  rir 
^£T«(u4y';^a)3-;p  t/vat.  Omnibus  Magis  (though  divided  into  various  classes,)  pri- 
mum  hoc  et  maxime  ratum  dogma  est,  dari  animarum  transmigrationem.  But 
from  this  brief  statement,  it  cannot  be  determined  whether  Manrs  agreed  in  all 
respects,  or  only  in  part,  wiUi  the  views  of  the  Magi.     As  we  h.avc  seen,  Manes 


374  Century  IIL—Section  50. 

exempted  a  large  portion  of  human  souls  from  the  discomforts  of  a  migration 
into  new  bodies.  Whether  the  Magi  did  the  same,  or  whether  they  doomed 
all  souls  without  exception,  to  this  process,  is  not  sufficiently  known. — The 
different  state  of  souls  on  leaving  the  body,  according  to  the  views  of  Manes,  as 
likewise  his  whole  religious  system,  was  professedly  expounded  by  Agapius,  a 
shrewd  and  crafty  Manichaean,  who,  for  the  sake  of  concealment,  used  tiie  com- 
mon words  and  phrases  of  Christians,  but  affixed  to  them  meanings  accordant 
with  the  opinions  of  his  master.  His  work  was  sulliciently  extended  and  co- 
pious, for  it  consisted  of  xxiii.  Books,  and  102  Chapters.  From  it  Pholius  has 
given  us  some  extracts,  (in  his  Bibliotheca,  Cod.  clxxix.  p.  402.)  which  are  not 
indeed  useless,  and  may  be  serviceable  to  help  us  understand  the  subtilty  of 
the  later  Manichaeans  in  concealing  their  doctrines ;  and  yet  they  are  more 
brief  than  could  be  wished.  Among  them,  however,  is  the  following  neat 
epitome  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Manicha^ans,  respecting  the  state  of  souls  when 
released  from  the  body  :  Kpa-rvut  i't  nat  ras  ^eT£^4t;;^w3-eK,  tc^c  f^h  iis  anfof 
dpnii^  iXnXVKOTai,  eti  QtOY  dvaXua'v.  Tcus  cTs  cts  uKpov  KOJiiai  Trvpl  J'lS'cvi  Kai 
(TKira).      Tct)j  S'i  juia-et);   ttws  7ro\triua-u/nivoiis,    naXiv   ctf   (TcojUUTd.  KcLTayav.     Probat 

praeterea  animarum  migrationes :  alios  quidem,  qui  summum  virtutis  gradum 
attigerunt,  ad  Deum  facit  reverti :  alios  vero,  qui  ad  fastigium  malitiae  pervener- 
unt,  igni  tradit  et  tenebris  :  inter  hos  vero,  qui  medio  quodam  modo  hie  vixerunt, 
eos  in  corpora  iterum  detrudit.  Manes,  therefore,  distributed  departing  souls 
into  three  classes,  the  pure,  the  impure,  and  the  parliaUy  pure.  The  pure,  which 
had  kept  the  whole  law  of  Christ,  went  directly  to  God,  and  regained  their 
primeval  seats :  Such  were  the  souls  of  the  perfect  Maniehseans,  whom  they 
called  the  Elect.  The  impure,  which  had  wholly  disregarded  the  law  of  Christ, 
were  delivered  over  to  the  princes  of  darkness,  to  suffer  the  just  penalty  of  their 
wickedness.  The  partially  pure,  who  had  fulfilled  their  duty  in  part,  were 
obliged  to  migrate  into  other  bodies ;  Such  were  the  souls  of  those  called  Au- 
ditors, who  in  many  things  obeyed  the  body  and  the  instincts  of  nature.  Of  the 
return  of  purer  souls  to  God,  by  means  of  the  moon  and  the  sun,  we  have  al- 
ready spoken  ;  so  that  it  now  remains  only  to  speak  of  the  impure  and  the  par- 
tially  pure. 

Such  souls  as  are  partially  pure,  pass  into  other  bodies,  until  they  shall 
have  completed  their  purgation  ;  and  they  pass  not  only  into  the  bodies  of  men 
[p.  869.]  and  animals,  but  also  into  those  of  trees,  plants,  herbs,  &,c.  For  the 
whole  world  of  nature,  as  Manes  most  expressly  asserts,  is  full  of  souls.  1 
will  cite  only  a  single  passage  from  Augustine,  (de  Hseres.  c.  46.  p.  12.)  :  Ani- 
mas Auditorum  suorum  ( — he  means,  such  of  them  as  live  up  to  their  duty,)  in 
Electos  revolvi  arbitrantur,  aut  feliciore  compendio  in  escas  Electorum,  (melons, 
cucumbers,  herbs,  fruits,)  ut  jam  inde  purgatse  in  nulla  corpora  revertantur. 
Ceteras  autem  animas  et  in  pecora  redire  putant  et  in  omnia,  quoe  radicibus  fixa 
sunt,  atque  aluntur  in  terra.  But  from  the  animals  into  w'hose  bodies  souls 
may  migrate,  the  Manichajans  excepted  the  very  small  animals,  and  particularly 
fleas,  lice,  gnats,  and  other  insects ;  which,  they  said,  were  not  animals,  but  the 
filth  of  human  bodies;  and  the  reason,  I  suppose,  was,  that  their  bodies  were 
thought  too  small  to  contain  human  souls.     Says  Augustine,  (contra  Adiman- 


Faie  of  unpurgated  Souls.  375 

turn,  c.  12.  torn.  viii.  p.  90.)  :  Nej^nnt  (Manichoei)  usque  ad  i<^ta  minuliasiina 
animnntiii  rovolvi  aniiuas  hunianas  posse.  Hoc  negaiit,  iic  tani  miiltaruin  iiiter- 
fec'tioiuun  rei  teneaiitur,  aut  cogatitur  parcere  pediculis  et  pulicibus  et  ciinii-l- 
bus,  et  tantas  ab  eis  nioU'stiis  sine  ulla  caddis  eorum  licontia  siisliiu'rc.  Nam 
velienieiiter  urgent ur,  cur  in  vnlpeculam  revolvi  anitna  huniana  possit,  et  non 
in  inustelam,  cum  catulus  vulpt-eulac  fortasse  etiam  niiiior  sit,  quam  nuifrna 
inustda.  Deindc  si  in  mustelam  potest,  cur  in  murem  non  j»otest  ?  Et  si  in 
istuni  potest,  (The  Manichaeans  certainly  did  admit,  that  a  soul  might  migrate 
into  a  mouse;  as  will  be  sliown.)  cur  in  stellionem  non  potest?  Et  si  in  euin 
potest,  cur  in  locustani  non  pote^t  ?  Deinde  in  apcm,  deindc  in  muscam,  deindc 
in  cimicem,  atque  inde  usque  in  pulieem,  et  si  quid  est  aliud  multo  miiuitins- 
pervenire.  Ubi  enim  terminum  constituant,  non  inveniunt.  On  tliia  subject 
Augustine  reasons  in  the  same  manner,  (de  moribus  I\Ianichaeor,  L.  ii.  c.  17. 
tom.  i.  p.  550.)  where,  among  other  things,  he  says:  Hue  accedit  ilia  gradatio, 
quae,  cum  vos  audirem,  nos  saepe  turbavit.  Nulla  enim  caussa  est,  cur  propter 
parvum  corporis  modulum  pulex  necandus  sit  (because,  not  containing  a  soul. 
For  this  was  the  reason  why  a  flea  might  be  killed.)  non  etiam  musca,  quae  in 
faba  gignitur.  Et  si  haec,  cur  non  etiam  ista  paullo  aniplior,  cujus  certe  fetus 
minor  est,  quam  ilia,  -  -  Ne  lonqum  faciam,  nonne  videtis  his  gradibus  ad  ele- 
phantum  perveniri  ?  I  know  not  whether  the  Manichaeans  also  excepted  from 
among  animals  into  which  souls  migrate  any  of  those  that  are  noxious  and 
troublesome  to  mankind.  But  I  think  it  quite  probable  ;  because  we  learn  from 
Augustine  (de  moribus  Manichaeor,  L.  ii.  c.  17.  p.  550.)  that  they  thought 
some  of  tliese  animals  are  not  genuine  animals,  but  originated  from  the  dead 
bodies  of  men  :  Tmpunius  ergo  occiditur  vel  anguis,  vel  sorex,  vel  scorpio,  quos 
de  humanis  cadaveribus  nasci,  a  vobis  potissimum  solemus  audire.  Perhaps, 
also,  there  were  some  species  of  trees,  plants,  and  herbs,  which  they  sup- 
posed incapable  of  receiving  human  souls.  But  I  find  nothing  written  [p.  870.] 
on  the  subject. 

These  transmigrations  of  the  imperfectly  purgated  souls,  are  ordered  of  God 
in  perfect  equity,  according  to  the  merits  of  individuals.  For  as  each,  while  in 
the  body,  conducted  himself  well,  or  ill,  or  inditferently,  .so  his  new  habitation 
will  be  either  noble  or  ignoble,  either  \y retched  or  tolerable.  Tyrbo,  in  the 
Disputation  of  Archelaus,  has  said  much  respecting  this  doctrine,  but  very  con- 
fusedly; and  he  is  apparently  not  free  from  errors.  I  will  attempt  to  systema- 
tize the  subject.  In  itself,  it  is  indeed  of  little  importance;  yet  it  may  be  of  use 
for  elucidating  some  passages  in  the  ancient  writers,  and  for  explaining  the  in- 
ternal principles  of  this  sect. — First,  the  souls  of  the  Auditors,  which  came  the 
nearest  to  the  virtue  practised  by  the  Elect,  who  neither  cultivated  the  ground, 
nor  slew  animals,  nor  begat  children,  nor  busied  themselves  wilh  building 
houses  or  accumulating  wealth,  although  they  pursued  other  kinds  of  worldly 
bu^iness,  married  wives,  and  ate  flesh; — these  souls,  I  say,  being  purer  than 
others,  passed  either  into  the  bodies  of  the  Elect,  or  into  t  e  kinds  of  food  most 
used  by  the  EIrct,  such  as  melons,  cucumbers,  olives,  potherbs,  &n'.  PVom  such 
bodies  there  is  direct  access  to  heaven.  For,  as  the  Elect  live  in  celibacy,  they 
caiuiot  again  infuse  souls  into  new  bodies,  as  others  do,  by  cohabitation,  More- 


376  Century  Ill.—Section  50. 

over,  the  food  eaten  by  the  Elect,  is  so  purified  by  their  prayers  and  sanctity, 
that  the  souls  hitent  in  it,  can  freely  ascend  to  the  world  of  light.  A  passage 
\vhich  substantiates  this,  has  just  been  cited  from  Augustine.  I  will  now  add 
two  others  of  similar  import.  The  iirst  is,  (contra  Faustum,  L.  v.  c.  10.  p.  144.): 
Fallitis  Auditores  vestros,  qui  cum  suis  uxoribus,  et  filiis  et  familiis  et  domibua 
et  agris  vobis  serviunt. — Nam  eis  non  resurrectionem,  sed  revolutionem  ad  istara 
mortalitntem  promittitis,  ut  rursus  naseantur  et  vita  Eleetorum  vestrorum  vi- 
vant — aut  si  melioris  meriti  sunt,  in  melones  et  cucumeres,  vel  in  alios  aliquos 
cibos  veniant,  quos  vos  mauducaturi  estis,  ut  vestris  ructatibus  cito  purgentur. 
The  other  passage  is,  (de  Ilaeres.  c.  46.  p.  11.):  Ipsam  boni  a  malo  purgationem 
non  solum  virtutes  Dei  facere  dicunt,  vcrura  etiam  Electos  suos  per  alimenta, 
qu£B  sumunt.  Eis  quippe  aliraentis  Dei  substantiam  p^erhibent  esse  commixtam, 
quani  purgari  putant  in  Electis  suis  eo  genere  vita3,  quo  vivunt  Electi.  A  harder 
lot  awaited  those  (Auditors)  who  pursued  agriculture,  and  especially  reapers. 
Plowmen  were  promised  impunity;  if  Augustine  has  correctly  stated  the  views 
of  the  sect,  (de  Hares,  c.  46.  p.  12.):  Auditoribus  suis  ideo  agriculturam  (by 
which,  however,  many  homicides  were  committed,)  arbitrantur  ignosci,  quia  prse- 
bent  inde  alimenta  Electis  suis,  ut  divina  ilia  substantia  in  eorum  ventre  purgata 
impetret  eis  veniam,  quorum  traditur  oblatione  purganda.  But  those  who  cut 
down  wheat,  herbs,  potherbs,  grass,  &c.  w^ould,  after  death,  pass  into  stalks  of 
[p.  871.]  grain,  grass,  or  herbs,  that  they  might  suffer  the  same  pangs  which 
they  had  inflicted  on  grass  and  herbs.  Tyrlo,  (in  Acta  Archelai,  §  9.  p.  15.)  says: 
Messores  necesse  est  transfundi  in  foenum,  aut  in  faseolum,  aut  in  hordeum,  aut 
in  olera,  ut  et  ipsi  desecentur  et  demetantur.  Tyrlo  adds:  Qui  mandueant  pa- 
nem,  necesse  est,  ut  et  ipsi  manducentur,  panem  effecti.  Yet  this  cannot  be  en- 
tirely true;  for  the  Elect  themselves,  whose  souls  go  immediately  to  God  at  tlie 
death  of  their  bodies,  ate  bread.  I  therefore  suppose,  that  this  is  to  be  under- 
Btood  of  such  as  ate  bread,  without  obtaining  a  license  from  the  Elect.  For,  the 
Auditors  who  consulted  the  interests  of  their  souls,  went  before  the  Elect,  and 
commended  themselves  to  their  prayers,  that  so  they  might  fearlessly  eat  their 
food,  and  especially  bread.  Such  Auditors  as  slew  animals,  which  was  a  thing 
absolutely  forbidden,  migrated  into  the  bodies  of  such  animals  as  they  had  slain. 
Tyrho,  (1.  cit.  p.  16.):  Qui  occiderit  pullum,  et  ipse  puUus  erit,  qui  murem,  mys 
etiam  ipse  erit.  A  heavier  punishment  was  to  be  endured  by  those,  who  had 
labored  to  accumulate  riches,  or  had  built  for  themselves  convenient  houses: 
Si  quis  vero  est  dives  in  hoc  mundo,  cum  exierit  de  corpore  suo,  necesse  est 
eura  in  corpus  pauperis  injici,  ita,  ut  ambulet  et  mendicet.  -  -  Qui  autera  sedifi- 
caverit  sibi  domum,  dispergetur  per  omnia  corpora;  that  is,  he  will  wonder 
through  various  bodies.  For,  as  he  wished  to  prepare  himself  a  permanent  seat 
or  constant  home  in  this  life,  his  just  punishment  will  be,  when  released  from 
the  body,  to  have  no  fixed  residence,  but  to  dwell  sometimes  in  one  body,  and 
sometimes  in  another.  It  was  allowed  to  i\Ianicha3an  Auditors,  (but  not  to  the 
Elect,  of  whom  absolute  poverty  was  required,)  to  hold  property  of  all  kinds 
descending  to  them  from  their  ancestors;  and  there  were  examples  of  wealthy 
men  among  them:  such  was  that  Constantius  of  Rome,  mentioned  a  few  times 
by  Augustine,  who  was  very  wealthy  and  prosperous.     But  it  was  criminal  to 


Fate  of   Uitpurc/atcd  Souls.  ^77 

eagerly  Iieap  up  riches,  or  to  build  liouses;  for  all  such  as  indulged  their  desires 
and  lusts,  serve  the  evil  soul  and  the  Prince  of  evil.  Those  who  conmiitted  any 
great  crime,  would  be  punished  by  divine  justice,  in  proportion  to  the  magnitude 
and  atrocity  of  their  offences.  A  homicide,  for  instance,  as  Tyrbo  says:  in  ele- 
phantiacoruni  corpora  transferetur:  that  is,  will  pass  into  human  bodies  infected 
with  some  species  of  leprosy,  the  most  loathsome  and  filthy  of  diseases.  And 
he  who  shall  have  planted  a  persea,  (a  tree,  but  of  what  species  I  know  not  *  It 
was  held  in  the  greatest  abhorrence  by  the  Manichajans,  probably,  because  its 
fruit  was  thought  to  excite  lascivious  desires,)  necesse  est  eum  transire  per 
multa  corpora,  usque  quo  persea  ilia,  quam  plantaverat,  concidat.  Otlier  crimes, 
doubtless,  had  also  their  specific  penalties.  The  Elect,  as  already  remarked,  if 
they  should  swerve  from  duty,  could  w\ash  out  the  stain  thus  contracted,  by  re- 
pentance. Souls  not  belonging  to  the  Manichcean  community,  and  destitute  of 
a  knowledge  of  what  they  called  the  truth,  when  life  ended,  roamed  through  the 
bodies  of  five  animals;  and,  if  they  became  somewhat  purgated  in  these,  [p-  872.] 
they  passed  into  the  bodies  of  Manichaeans;  but  if  they  wholly  neglected  their 
purgation  in  the  five  bodies,  they  were  sent  to  hell.  Says  Tyrbo,  (^  9.  p.  15.) : 
Animee  (doubtless,  meaning  the  souls  destitute  of  the  light  of  truth.)  in  alia  quin(iuc 
( — In  the  Gr.  of  Epiphanius,  -/rcvn.  The  Latin  translator  erroneously  says,  quo- 
que. — )  corpora  transfunduntur.  In  horum  primo  purgatur  aliquid  ex  ea  parum, 
deinde  transfunditur  in  canem,  aut  in  camelum,  aut  in  alterins  animalis  corpus. 
(2)  The  transmigration  of  souls  into  other  bodies,  was  rather  a  paternal 
chastisement,  or  a  salutary  admonition,  than  a  judicial  penalty ;  or,  if  you 
please,  it  was  the  penalty  for  negligence.  But  there  were  souls,  which  either 
sinned  enormously,  or  contemned  God's  gentle  and  wise  coercion  of  the  erring, 
and  in  a  degree  added  malignitv  to  neglifjence  ;  and  to  these  divine  iustice  al- 
lotted  a  heavier  punishment,  and  they  were  therefore  sent  to  hell  to  be  tor- 
mented by  the  demons.  For  the  Manichaeans  had  their  hell,  though  very  dif- 
ferent from  ours.  When  the  Living  Spij'il  arranged  the  material  substances,  so 
as  to  frame  our  world,  he  found  a  mass  of  evil  fire,  with  no  mixture  of  good 
fire  in  it,  which  the  vanquished  and  flying  princes  of  darkness  had  left  behind. 
And  that  mass  he  cast  out  of  this  world,  shutting  it  up  in  a  place  without  our 
world,  I  know  not  where,  but  probably  in  the  air,  lest  it  should  injure  this  ter- 
restrial globe;  and  this  is  the  Manicluoan  hell.  Over  this  noxious  fire,  which  is 
a  portion  of  the  world  of  darkness,  the  princes  of  darkness  and  their  king  pre- 
side: and  as  they  are  stationed  in  the  stars  or  the  regions  above  us,  that  fire  must 
be  situated  in  their  vicinity.  Such  souls,  therefore,  as  are  distinguished  for  the 
magnitude  of  their  crimes,  are  delivered  over  to  the  enemies  of  God,  not  indeed 
to  perish,  for  this  the  divine  goodness  cannot  permit;  but  that  they  may  be 
roasted,  as  it  were,  in  that  fierce  and  terrible  fire,  and  thus  become  freed  in  good 
measure  from  the  depraved  matter  which  they  have  absorbed.  Some  of  these 
souls  are  sent,  immediately  on  leaving  the  body,  into  this  fire;  but  others,  after 
a  fruitless  peregrination  in  certain  bodies.  Of  the  former  of  these  two  classes, 
besides  some  perhaps  not  mentioned  by  the  ancient  writers,  are: — Ist.  Those 

*  Du  Cangc,  (Gloasar.  mcd.  et  inf.  Latinitatis,  torn.  iii.  p.  277.)  supposes  it  waa  a  peach  tree,  the 

TTtfi 


378  Century  Ill.—Section  50. 

which  spurn  divine  truth,  or  the  religion  of  Manes,  and  wilfully  persevere  in 
their  errors.  Tyrho,  (in  the  Acta  Archehii,  ^  10.  p.  18.)  says:  Si  exicrit  :inima, 
quse  non  cognoverit  veritatein,  traditur  da^monibus,  ut  earn  donieiit  in  geheinia 
ignis.  And,  a  little  after;  Si  qnis  sequitur  verba  ipsorura  (Mosos  and  the  .levv- 
jsli  prophets,)  morietur  in  sa3cula  (u?  roui  dtwi/of,  in  longum  aevutn,)  devinctus 
intra  massam  (in  t»v  ^bokov,  namely,  of  evil  f  re,)  quoniam  non  didicit  seientiam 
Paraditi,  (that  is,  of  Manes.)  Beware  of  understanding  this,  of  the  souls  un- 
avoidably ignorant  of  the  truth;  these  pass  into  the  bodies  of  various  animals, 
as  we  have  before  shown.  The  souls  here  intended,  were  undoubtedly  such  as 
[p.  873.]  rejected  the  light  of  divine  truth,  and  obstinately  preferred  darkness  to 
liglit. — 2dly.  The  souls  which  :ipostatize  from  the  Manichaian  religion,  after 
having  embraced  it.  The  ]\Ianicha3ans  called  deserters  from  their  sect,  men 
destitute  of  light,  or  men  wholly  forsaken  by  the  light.  Says  Augustine,  (de 
utilitate  credendi,  e.  1.  torn.  i.  p.  35.):  Desinant  dicere  illud,  quod  in  ore  habent 
tanquam  necessarium,  cum  eos  quisque  deseruerit,  qui  diutius  audisset:  Lumen 
per  ilium  transitura  fecit;  that  is,  as  Augustine  himself  immediately  explains  it: 
A  lumiue  plane  desertus  est.  For  those  who  have  cast  away  the  truth,  have 
lost  all  claim  to  divine  fjivors,  and  deserve  to  be  delivered  over  to  the  rulers  of 
darkness  for  chastisement. — 3dly.  Still  more  worthy  of  such  punishment,  were 
the  souls  which  obstructed  the  progress  of  the  religion  of  Manes,  and  reviled 
and  abused  its  professors.  Manes  himself,  in  his  Epistola  Fundamenti,  (apud 
Euodium,  de  fide,  c.  1.  in  Append.  0pp.  August,  tom.  i.  p.  25.)  says:  Quae  ini- 
micaj  lumini  sancto  extiterunt,  aperteque  in  perniciem  sanctorum  elementorum 
se  armarunt,  et  igneo  spiritui  (the  Demon)  obsequutae  sunt,  infesta  etiam  per- 
secutione  sua  sanctam  ecclesiam,  atque  Electos  in  eadem  constitutes  coelostiura 
praeceptorum  observatores  afflixerunt,  a  beatitudine  et  gloria  terrae  sanctae 
arcentur — et  configentur  in  praedicto  horribili  globo. — 4thly.  Into  the  evil  fire 
will  be  sent,  the  souls  which  left  the  body  without  penitence  and  sorrow  for  the 
sins  they  may  have  committed.  Says  Secundinus,  (Epistola  ad  August.  §  2. 
p.  369.):  Si  cum  eodem  peccato  (anima)  sine  venia  reeedat,  tunc  excludetur, 
tunc  virgini  stultae  comparabitur,  tunc  heres  erit  sinistrae  manus,  tunc  a  Do. 
mino  pelletur  ex  convivio  nuptiarum,  nigrarum  caussa  vestium,  ubi  fletus  erit  et 
stridor  dentium,  ibitque  cum  diabolo  ad  ignem  originis  ipsius.  Non  punitur, 
quia  peccavit,  sed  quia  de  peccato  non  doluit.— 5thly.  The  souls  which  would 
not  supply  the  Elect  with  food.  The  Elect,  as  before  shown,  spent  their  lives 
in  leisure  amid  prayer  and  meditations,  and  could  neither  engage  in  or  perform 
any  worldly  business  whatever;  they  were  also  absolute  paupers,  and  wholly 
destitute  of  either  money  or  goods.  Hence  the  Auditors  were  required  to  afford 
them  support.  Nor  was  this  any  great  burden,  or  an  onerous  duty,  because  the 
Elect  lived  upon  bread,  water,  fruit,  herbs,  and  melons;  and  also  macerated  their 
bodies  with  frequent  fasts.  Therefore,  such  Auditors  as  refused  sustenance  to  these 
very  holy  persons,  involved  themselves  in  an  atrocious  sin.  Says  Tijrbo,  (in  the 
Acta  Archelai,  J  9.  p.  16.):  Qui  non  pra^stiterit  Electis  ejus  alimenta,  pcenis  sub- 
detur  gehennaj,  et  transformatur  (after  enduring  this  punishment,)  in  catechu- 
menorum  corpora,  usque  quo  faciat  misericordias  multas.  Consequently,  these 
hard  and  inhumane  Auditors,  before  they  passed  into  other  bodies,  were  sub- 


The  Passive   Jesus  Liberated.  379 

jected  to  severe  punishments  in  hell. — Of  the  olher  ehisa  of  souls,  (on  whkh 
transmigration  was  first  tried,  and  then  hell-fire,)  were: — (a)  Sueh  as  retained 
their  di'sires  for  wealth  and  riehes,  even  in  the  bodies  of  paupers  and  mendi- 
cants, into  which  they  had  been  sent.  Says  Tyrbo,  (m  the  Acta  Arthelai, 
p.  16.):  Dives  in  hoc  mnndo  cum  exicrit  de  corpure  sno,  nceesse  est  [p.  874.] 
eum  in  corpus  pauperis  injiei,  ita  ut  ambulet  et  mendicet,  et  post  hoce  (^namely, 
if  in  this  body  he  did  not  overcome  his  thirst  for  wealth,)  eat  in  pocnas  aeternas. 
(i.  e.  in  the  style  of  the  Manichaeans,  in  poenas  diuturnas.) — (b)  The  souls 
which,  after  migrating  through  the  five  bodies,  retained  all  their  vitiosily.  The 
Manichaeans  supposed,  that  in  general  souls  pass  through  five  bodies  of  animals 
in  each  of  which  tiicy  ougiit  to  drop  some  portion  of  their  filth ;  but  if  tht!y  diJ 
not,  they  deserved  the  punishment  of  hell.  For  more  forceable  and  energetic 
medicines  are  necessary  when  moderate  and  g'entle  ones  fail. 

But  these  punishments  in  hell,  to  wliieh  God  sends  the  more  perverse  souls 
have  their  termination,  doubtless,  according  to  the  otfences  of  the  individuals-, 
and  they  are  salutary  to  souls.  For  by  that  fierce  fire  a  large  part  of  the  filthi- 
ness  which  hindered  their  purgation  in  the  former  life,  is  consumed  ;  and,  this 
being  as  it  were  roasted  out  of  them,  they  are  again  sent  into  other  bodies,  for 
a  new  probation,  in  which  they  are  to  conflict  again  with  the  body  and  the  evil 
soul.  Says  Tyrbo^  (in  the  Acta  Arehelai,  p.  18.):  Si  exierit  anima,  quae  non 
cognoverit  veritatem,  traditur  daemonibus,  ut  earn  doment  in  gehenna  ignis,  et 
posteaquam  correcta  fuerit,  {lutra.  Tjiv  ^aihva-tv.  See  here,  the  salutary  influence 
of  these  punishments.)  transfunditur  in  alia  corpora,  ut  domctur,  (to  be  purgat- 
ed,)  et  ita  injicitur  in  magnum  ilium  ignem  usque  ad  consuramationem.  He 
here  expresses  himself  concisely,  as  he  usually  does ;  but  it  is  manifest,  that  he 
intended  to  say  :  If  a  soul,  after  punishment  by  fire,  is  sent  into  otiier  bodies, 
and  still  perseveres  in  its  negligence,  and  follows  its  lusts,  just  as  in  the  forme/ 
life,  it  loses  all  hope  of  salvation,  and  is  again  cast  into  the  bad  fire,  over  whiCh 
the  princes  of  darkness  have  control ;  and  it  will  remain  in  tliat  fire  until  tiie 
end  of  the  world.  What  will  become  of  it  at  the  end  of  the  world,  we  i.hall 
soon  show — The  Manichaeans  therefore  believed,  as  other  Christians  did, 
though  for  diflferent  reasons,  and  in  a  different  way,  that  many  souls  of  sinful 
men  are  now  in  hell,  and  are  tormented  by  evil  demons.  What  Tyrbo  states 
on  this  subject,  is  also  stated  by  Epiphanius,  and  by  other  more  modern  wi  iters, 
whose  testimonies  I  need  not  cite. 

§  LI.  The  Liberation  of  the  Passive  Jesus.  Besides  the  ration- 
al and  intelligent  souls,  those  particles  of  the  divine  light,  there 
are  portions  of  the  celestial  elements  scattered  throughout  the  na- 
tural world,  and  mixed  up  with  base  matter ;  and  these,  in  va- 
rious wa3^s,  but  especially  b}^  the  heat  and  influence  of  the  sun, 
are  detached  from  base  matter,  and  drawn  upwards ;  and,  being 
purgated  in  the  moon  and  sun,  they  return  to  the  world  of  li[;ht.(') 
But  the  son  of  the  First  Man,  the  Passive  Jesus,  wliom  fp.  875.] 
the  Prince  of  darkness  and  his  warriors  devoured  during  the  first 


380  Century  IIL—Sedion  51. 

Avar,  and  still  hold  in  durance,  is  gradually  liberated  by  a  singu- 
lar artifice  of  God.  For  at  certain  times  God  presents  to  the 
view  of  the  demon  some  of  the  celestial  Beings  resident  in  the 
sun  and  moon,  clothed  in  the  form  of  very  beautiful  boys  and 
girls ;  and  on  seeing  them,  the  lusts  of  the  demons  are  so  in- 
flamed that  they  sweat  most  profusely,  and  the  celestial  matter 
oozing  out  with  the  sweat  from  their  huge  bodies,  falls  upon  our 
earth.  This  celestial  matter,  thus  expressed  from  the  princes  of 
darkness  and  falling  upon  the  earth,  fecundates  it  and  causes  it 
to  produce  or  send  forth  trees,  fruits,  plants,  salads,  potherbs,  &c. ; 
and  when  these  are  eaten,  that  which  is  divine  in  them,  the  sen- 
tient soul,  is  detached  from  depraved  matter  and  escapes,  and, 
being  purgated  in  the  moon  and  sun,  ascends  to  the  world  of 
light.  And  this  accounts  for  the  clouds,  the  rains,  the  storms, 
the  showers,  the  lightnings  and  the  thunder.  For  the  Prince  of 
darkness  and  his  associates,  becoming  enraged  and  agitated  when 
God  frustrates  their  lustful  desires,  disturb  both  heaven  and 
earth,  and  frequently  produce  terrible  commotions  in  nature  ; 
■which,  however,  are  in  some  respects  useful  and  salutary.(^) 

(1)  These  statements  will  be  easily  understood,  from  what  has  been  said 
and  repeated  more  than  once.  Souls  pertain  to  the  element  light;  and  conse- 
quently, they  are  nearly  allied  to  the  nature  of  God,  or  rather,  they  are  his  off- 
spring. But  besides  this  light,  there  are  four  other  elements;  and  innumerable 
particles  of  all  these  elements,  in  the  war  of  the  First  Man  with  the  Prince  of 
darkness,  became  mixed  up  and  joined  with  the  depraved  elements.  And  there- 
fore, previously  to  the  destruction  of  this  world,  it  is  necessary  that  so  much  of 
the  celestial  elements  as  adheres  to  the  vicious  elements,  should  be  disengaged, 
and  be  restored  to  the  kingdom  of  God.  And  this  God  effects  in  various  ways, 
but  especially  by  means  of  the  heat  and  rays  of  the  sun.  For  instance,  the 
sun,  by  its  influences,  gradually  extracts  the  particles  of  good  water  joined  with 
the  bad  water  in  our  world,  and  transmits  them  when  purgated  to  their  native 
country.  And  so  of  all  the  elements.  Our  fire  is  principally  evil  fire ;  yet  it 
contains  many  particles  of  good  fire,  and  these  gradually  escape,  being  elicited 
by  the  air  which  agitates  the  fire.  Augustine,  (de  natura  boni,  c.  44.  p.  365.) : 
Ipsam  partem  naturae  Dei  dicunt,  ubique  permixtam  in  coelis,  in  terris,  sub  ter- 
ris  -  -  solvi  vero,  liberari,  purgariqne  non  solum  per  discursum  solis  et  lunae, 
et  virtutes  lucis  (Beings  living  in  the  sun  and  moon,)  verum  etiam  per  Electos 
suos. 

[p.  876.]  (2)  We  now  come  to  that  portion  of  the  Manichasan  system  which, 
although  not  destitute  of  ingenuity,  exceeds  all  the  rest  in  senselessness  and  folly, 
according  to  our  apprehensions  :  I  say,  according  to  our  apprehensions,  for  to  the 
people  of  the  East,  especially  to  the  Persians,  who  philosophized  more  grossly 


I 


The  Passive  Jesus  libera  fed.  381 

than  we  do,  it  was  undoubtedly  less  insipid,  and  perh.ips  appeared  wise.  By 
tiie  coniniixture  of  good  \\\[h  evil,  Mnnei>  would  acconiit  for  all  oci-nrrenccs  in 
the  physical  world  and  in  human  nature.  And  in  many  particuhirs.  his  plati 
seemed  to  succeed  pretty  well.  But  in  the  midst  of  his  course,  a  great  dillieulty 
met  him  ;  namely,  whence  originated  the  clouds,  tlie  showers,  the  tempests,  the 
soaking  rains,  the  thunders,  &.c  ?  From  God  thoy  undoubtedly  do  not  come; 
for  he  is  perfectly  and  exclusively  good.  Although  the  rains  are  of  some  uso 
in  fertilizing  the  earth  and  causing  it  to  produce  fruits  and  plants  and  trees,  the 
food  of  the  Elect;  yet  they  also  cause  many  evils  and  inconveniences  to  men. 
~But  the  storms,  tempests,  thunders,  and  fogs,  appear  simply  evil  and  hurtful. 
Therefore,  the  Princes  of  darkness  residing  in  the  air  or  the  upper  regions,  un- 
doubtedly, are  the  cause  of  these  occurrences  in  nature.  But  the  rain,  though 
often  hurtful,  is  yet  beneficial  both  to  the  earth  and  to  its  inhabitants  :  and  no- 
thing useful  or  good  can  come  from  the  rulers  of  darkness,  who  are  evil  by 
nature.  This  difficulty  compelled  Manes  again  to  resort  to  his  commixture  of 
good  and  evil,  and  to  suppose  that  a  considerable  portion  of  celestial  matter 
still  remained  in  the  bodies  of  the  evil  demons,  notwithstanding  the  principal 
part  of  it,  the  Uglit,  had  been  forced  out  of  them.  Still  the  difficulty  was  not 
wholly  removed;  for  it  might  be  asked,  What  induces  the  Prince  of  darkness 
and  his  associates  to  give  up  the  celestial  matter  contained  in  their  bodies,  and 
to  sulfer  it  to  descend  upon  this  our  earth  ?  That  they  would  do  it  spontane- 
ously, cannot  be  believed.  It  must  then  be  that  they  are  compelled,  unwilling- 
ly, to  relax  their  hold  on  the  celestial  matter.  But  who  can,  either  by  force  or 
by  artifice,  bring  them  to  relinquish  so  great  a  treasure?  To  free  himself  from 
this  difficulty,  the  fertile  genius  of  Manes  invented  a  fable,  in  itself  monstrous 
and  void  of  all  reason,  yet  coinciding  very  well  with  his  other  opinions.  lie 
supposed,  1st,  That  during  the  first  conflict  between  the  good  and  evil  Princi- 
ples the  general  of  the  army  of  light  produced  a  son : — 2dl3%  That  the  Prince  of 
darkness  and  his  warriors  devoured  that  son  : — 3dly,  That  God,  in  order  to  ex- 
tract gradually  from  the  bodies  of  the  demons  and  liberate  this  son  of  the  First 
Man,  (who  is  a  mass  of  celestial  matter,  endowed  with  a  sentient  soul.)  excites 
the  natural  lusts  of  those  demons; — 4thly,  And  then  suddenly  withdraws  tho 
spectacle,  by  which  he  had  inflamed  their  lustful  desires; — 5th]y,  And  then  tho 
demons,  being  much  agitated,  are  thrown  into  violent  perspiration,  and  pour 
out  with  their  sweat  the  vital  matter  contained  in  ther  members. — 6thly,  This 
sweat  is  our  rain : — 7thly,  And  the  thunders,  high  winds,  tempests  [p.  877.] 
and  tornadoes,  which  often  accompany  rain,  are  indications  of  the  rage  of  the 
demons  when  deluded  by  God  with  fictitious  images. — For  the  sun  and  moon, 
those  two  divine  ships,  are  full  of  celestial  Beings,  or,  as  Manes  him.self  calls 
them,  Angels.  And  God,  as  often  as  he  sees  fit,  transforms  some  ofthe.se  An. 
gels  into  very  beautiful  boys  and  girls,  and  bids  them  exhibit  themselves  to  the 
princes  of  darkness.  The  boys  show  themselves  to  the  female  demons,  and  the 
girls  to  the  male  demons.  And  those  extremely  libidinous  giants,  on  seeing 
these  very  beautiful  images,  rush  to  embrace  them,  eager  for  coition.  But  the 
beautiful  Angels  flee;  and  by  their  flight  elude  the  hopes  of  their  lovers:  and 
hence  the  amazing  heats  and  violent  commotions  in  their  bodies.     Their  lust 


882  Century  III— Section  51. 

first  raisL's  .1  very  copious  perspiration  ;  and  with  their  sweat,  as  God  intended, 
they  let  out  the  vital  and  celestial  matter:  a  part  ot'Mliich,  mixed  with  the  rain, 
falls  upon  our  earth,  and  makes  it  productive  of  plants  and  trees;  and  a  part 
becomes  mixed  with  the  air,  and  flows  into  the  sun  and  moon,  where  it  is  pur- 
gated,  and  then  is  transmitted  into  the  realm  of  light.  The  sweating  princes  of 
darkness  meanwhile  exhibit  terrific  evidence  of  their  rage  and  fury,  on  account 
of  the  flight  of  the  beautiful  young  men  and  maidens.  Their  Lord  manifests 
liis  rage  by  terrific  roaring,  and  by  darting  the  malignant  fire,  of  which  he  has 
abundance:  and  these  are  the  thunders  and  lightning  which  frighten  mortals. 
He  and  his  associates  violently  agitate  the  air,  ar.d  })roduce  whirlwinds,  hale, 
tornadoes  and  tempests,  and  emit  dense  vapors,  which  form  clouds,  ob.'?cure  the 
sky,  and  intercept  the  rays  of  the  sun;  and  thus  they  often  put  all  nature  into 
commotion.  Tyrbo,  (in  the  Acta  Archelai,)  relates  this  absurd  fable,  though 
not  very  accurately  or  perspicuously,  from  the  oral  teaching  of  Manes  himself: 
and  Cyrill  of  Jerusalem,  (Cateches.  vi.  §  34.  p.  110.)  tells  us,  he  had  read  it  in 
the  books  of  Manichaeans.  Avgusline  and  others  often  mention  it,  and  reproach 
the  Manichaeans  with  it.  (See  Augustine,  contra  Faust.  L.  xx.  c.  6.  p.  238.  and, 
de  Ilccres.  c.  46.  p.  18.  and  elsewhere.)  Felix,  the  Manichaean,  tacitly  admits 
and  acknowledges  it,  (in  his  second  Dispute  with  i4ugust.  c.  7.  8.  p.  348.)  Says 
Augustine  to  him  :  Dicitis,  Deum  virtutes  suas  convertere  in  masculos  ad  irri- 
tandum  concupiscentias  dsemonum  foeminarum,  et  eosdem  rursus  convertere  in 
foeminas  ad  irritandum  concupiscentias  dsemonum  maseulorum,  ut  cum  daemo- 
niis  injiciunt  libidinem,  accensis  in  formas  confictas  a  Deo,  relaxentur  membra 
eorum  et  sic  evadat  pars  Dei,qua3  ibi  fuerat  colligata.  Hoc  tantum  opprobrium, 
hoc  lantum  sacrilegium  credere  ausi  estis  et  prajdicare  non  dubitatis.  And  what 
reply  does  Felix  make?  Does  he  deny  the  facts  ?  Or  assert  that  the  whole  is 
a  calumny  of  their  adversaries?  Or  does  he  strive  to  extenuate  and  explain 
[p.  878.]  away  the  turpitude  of  the  thing?  Nothing  of  these.  He  is  silent. 
Silent,  did  I  say  ?  He  acknowledges  that  this  fable  was  taught  by  his  master  ; 
and  maintains,  that  Christ  taught  what  equally  grates  on  human  ears,  respect- 
ing the  punishments  of  the  wicked  in  hell:  Crudelem  asseritis  Manichccum  hoc 
dicentem?  de  Christo  quid  dicimus,  qui  dixit :  Ite  in  ignem  a3tcrnum!— But  these 
many  and  credible  witnesses  have  not  induced  the  very  learned  Beausohre,  to 
believe  that  so  foolish  and  absurd  a  fable  could  come  from  Manes,  whom  he  re- 
gards as  no  contemptible  philosopher:  (Histoire  critique  du  Manichee,  vol.  ii. 
p.  388  &-C.)  Manichee  n'a  jamais  porte  I'egarement  jusque-Ki.  He  does  not  in- 
deed venture  to  deny,  that  Manes  considered  the  rain  to  be  the  sweat  of  the 
Prince  of  darkness,  and  thunder  to  be  his  angry  voice :  but  the  rest  of  the  fable 
lie  boldly  denies,  placing  it  among  the  false  criminations  maliciou.sly  invented, 
to  bring  dishonor  upon  a  man  who  erred  indeed,  yet  was  not  wholly  infiituated. 
Manes,  he  supposes,  taught  his  followers  that  God,  whenever  he  thinks  rain  to 
be  needed  by  mankind,  exhibits  to  the  princes  of  darkness  a  species  of  virgin 
light,  i.  e.  the  purest  kind  of  light,  perfectly  chaste  and  spotless;  and  that  they 
are  so  charmed  and  captivated  with  this  delightful  spectacle  that  the  sweat  flowa 
from  them  ;  and  when  they  are  deprived  of  it,  they  manifest  their  strong  indig- 
nation by  lightning,  clouds,  and  thunder.     The  other  things  were  idle  whims, 


The  Passive   Jesvs  Uherated.  383 

origlnatinfT  in  the  brains  of  oncniios  to  the  «]foo(l  Porsinn  ;  and  wlio,  from  i^jnor- 
anoe  of  Ihe  highly  figuralivo  Oriental  style,  transformed  xirfr'm  U^rhl,  or  tlio 
most  perfect  light,  into  a  heantiful  virgin. — Bnt  Manes  himf-elf  rejects  this  eru- 
dite patron  ;  and  demands  liberty  to  retain  and  assert  the  opinion,  which  this 
worthy  man  wonld  abstract  from  him.  Brauanbre,  a  man  of  immense  re:i(rmg, 
and  at  other  times  of  an  excellent  memory,  was  so  c.irried  away  by  his  strange 
eagerness  to  exculpate  and  make  respectable  the  ancient  herciic^,  that  he  could 
not  recollect  a  long  and  noted  passage,  still  extant,  from  the  seventh  I'ook  of 
the  Thesaurus  of  Manes,  in  which  he  not  only  states  but  expounds,  in  a  copi- 
ous  and  eloquent  discourse,  that  whole  fable,  concerning  which  Beau^ohre  nnyn, 
Nothing  could  be  more  stupid.  The  passage  is  not  only  in  Avgustine,  (de  na- 
tura  boni,  c.  44.  p.  364,  365.)  but  likewise,  in  the  same  words,  in  Evndius,  (dc 
fide,  c.  16,  p.  26,  27.)  That  there  may  be  no  ground  for  a  suspicion  of  any 
misrepresentation,  I  will  cite  the  passage  entire.  It  will  conduce  much  to  a  just 
estimate  of  the  genius  of  Manes ;  and  it  will  show  that  the  Christians  of  those 
times  did  not  deceive  posterity  by  declaring  his  system  folly,  and  the  man  him- 
self absurdly  ingenious.  It  reads  thus :  Tunc  beatus  ille  Pater  (God,  the 
Lord  of  the  world  of  Light,)  qui  lucidas  naves  (the  sun  and  the  moon,)  habet 
diversoria  et  habitacula  seu  magnitudines,  (i.  e.  who  has  placed  in  the  sun  and 
moon,  as  their  homes,  many  Angels  and  celestial  Beings,)  pro  insita  sihi  clc- 
mcntiri  fert  opem,  qua  exuitur  et  liberatur  ab  impiis  retinaculis  et  angustiis  at- 
que  angoribus  (from  the  bodies  of  the  princes  of  darkness,)  sua  vita-  [p.  879.] 
lis  substantia  :  (the  son  of  the  First  Man,  the  Jesus  passib His,  of  whom  wc  have 
already  spoken.)  Itaque  invisiiiili  suo  nutu  illas  suas  virtutes,  quae  in  clarissi- 
ma  hac  navi  (the  sun)  habentur,  transfigurat,  (for  the  Angels,  like  God  himself, 
are  mere  lucid  matter  without  form,)  easque  parere  (i.  e.  apparere)  facit  adversia 
potestatibus  (to  the  demons,)  qua3  in  singulis  ccelorum  tractibus  ordinate^  sunt. 
Qua?  quoniam  ex  utroquc  sexu,  masculorum  et  focminarum,  consistunt,  ideo 
praedictas  virtutes  partim  specie  puerorum  iwvestium  (beardless.)  parere  jnbet 
generi  adverso  foeminarum,  partim  virginum  lucidarum  formfi  gcneri  confrario 
masculorum  ;  sciens  eas  omnes  hostllcs  potestatcs  propter  ingenitam  sihi  letha- 
lem  et  spurcissimam  concupiscentiam  focillime  capi,  atque  iisdem  speciebua 
pulcherrimis,  quae  apparent,  mancipari,  hocque  mode  dissolvi.  Sciatis  autem, 
hunc  eundem  nostrum  beatum  Patrem  hoc  idem  esse,  quod  etiam  suae  virtutes 
(that  is,  these  Beings  or  Angels  are  of  the  same  nature  with  God,  and  were  begot- 
ten  of  him.)  quas  ob  necessariam  caussam  transformat  in  puerorum  et  virginum 
intemeratam  simiiitudinem,  Utiturautcm  histanquam  propriisarmis  atque  jx-reas 
suam  complet  voluntatem.  (Behold,  the  moral  character  of  this  stupid  fahlel) 
Harum  vero  virtutum  divinarum,quaead  instar  conjugii  contra  inferna  genera sta- 
tuuntLir,quaeque  alacriaate  ac  falicitate  id,  quod  cogitaverint,  memento  eodem  efll- 
ciant,  plaenae  sunt  lucidae  naves :  (the  sun  and  moon.)  Itaque  cum  ratio  po^ccrct, 
ut  masculis  (daemonibus)  appareant  eaedem  sanctae  virtutes,  illico  etiani  suam 
effigiem  virginum  pulcherrimarum  habitu  dcmonstrant.  Rursns  cum  ad  foeminas 
ventum  fuerit,postponentes  species  virginum,  puerorum  invcstium  spcciem  osten- 
dunt.  Hoc  autem  visu  decoro  illaruin  ardor  et  concnpiscentia  crescit, atque  hoc  mo- 
do  vinculum  pessimarum  earum  cogitationum  sjlvitur,  (For  the  princes  of  darkness 


384  Century  III— Section  51. 

have  resolved,  never  to  part  with  that  celestial  matlcr  which  they  have  devour- 
ed :  it  doubtless  tetnperates  and  alleviates  their  misery.  But  God  so  beguiles 
Ihem  witii  imagesof  youlhs  and  virgins,  that  they  forget  themselves,  and  disregard 
their  pernicious  plans  and  purposes;)  vivaque  aninia,  (not  endowed  with  reason, 
but  only  with  life  and  sensation,)  quae  eorundem  membris  tenebatur,  hac  ocea- 
sione  laxata  evadit,  et  suo  purissinio  aeri  miseetur,  ubi  penitus  ablutae  animae 
ad  lucidas  naves, (the  sun  and  moon,)  quae  sibi  ad  evectationem  atque  ad  suae 
patriae  transfretationem  sunt  praeparatae.  Id  vero  quod  adhuc  adversi  generis 
rnaculas  portat,  per  aestus  atque  ealores  particulatim  descendit,  (namely,  by  the 
rain,)  atque  arboribus,  ceterisque  plantationibus  ac  satis  omnibus  miseetur  et 
caloribus  diversis  inficitur.  Et  quo  pacto  ex  ista  magna  et  elarissama  nave,(tho 
sun.)  ligui-aj  puerorum  ac  virginum  apparent  contrariis  potestatibus,  qute  in 
[p.  880.]  coelis  degunt,  quwque  igneani  habent  naturam  atque  ex  isto  aspectu 
decoro  vitae  pars,  quae  in  earumdem  membris  habetur,  laxata  dedueitur  per 
calores  in  terram  :  eodem  modo  etiam  ilia  altissima  virtus,  quae  in  navi  vitali- 
um  aquarum  habitat,  (Christ  is  here  intended,  whom  the  Manichaeans  made 
resident  in  the  moon.)  in  similitudine  puerorum  ac  virginum  sanctarum  per  suoa 
angelos  apparet  his  potestatibus,  quarum  natura  frigida  est  atque  humida,  quae 
que  in  coelis  ordinatae  sunt.  Et  quidem  his  quae  foeminae  sunt,  in  ipsis  forma 
puerorum  apparet,  masculis  vero  virginum.  Hac  vero  mutatione  et  diversitate 
divinarum  personarum  ac  pulcherrimarum,  humidae  frigidaeque  stirpis  principes 
masculi  sive  foeminae  solvuntur,  atque  id,  quod  in  ipsis  est  vitale,  fugit;  quod 
vero  resederit,  laxatum  dedueitur  in  terram  per  frigora  et  cunctis  terrae  generi- 
bus  admiscetur.  After  reading  these  declarations  attentively,  can  we  say,  that 
the  ancient  Christians  did  injustice  to  Manes  ? — The  demons  or  princes  of 
darkness  dispersed  about  in  the  upper  regions  and  resident  in  the  stars,  are  not 
all  of  the  same  nature,  nor  of  the  .same  sex,  Some  are  of  a  fiery  nature,  and 
others  of  a  cold  and  humid  nature  :  And  some  are  males,  and  others  females. 
But  they  all  carry  in  their  bodies  no  small  quantity  of  celestial  matter,  or  of 
vital  soul,  as  Manes  calls  it.  They  are  all  full  of  unbridled  lust ;  and  this  they 
have  most  unfortunately  propagated  among  mankind  through  their  bodies.  And 
God  very  sagaciously  employs  this  their  innate  vitiosity,  to  extort  from  them 
the  vital  soul.  The  princes  of  a  fiery  nature,  God  excites  to  let  out  the  celestial 
matter,  by  the  igneous  Beings  resident  in  the  sun,  clothed  in  the  forms  of 
young  men  and  virgins.  The  princes  of  a  cold  and  humid  nature,  Christ,  resi- 
ding in  the  moon,  moves  by  means  of  the  lunar  Beings.  The  celestial  matter 
or  vital  soul,  elicited  by  such  deceptions  from  the  huge  giants  of  both  sexes  in 
sweat  and  otherwise,  is  in  part  pure  and  uncontaminated,  and  in  part  defiled 
with  the  stains  contracted  in  those  foul  bodies.  That  which  is  pure,  mino-les  at 
once  with  the  virgin  air,  and  mounts  aloft  to  the  world  of  light.  But  that 
which  has  stains,  descends  with  the  rains,  frosts  nnd  show-ers,  to  the  earth,  be- 
comes connected  with  plants  and  trees,  and  causes  the  passive  Jesus  to  shoot 
forth,  which,  as  Faustus  says,  hangs  on  all  the  trees.  A  ludicrous  and  amusing 
philosophy  truly,  and  not  unworthy  of  Persian  ingenuity  !— This  fiible,  which 
Manes  himself  announces  rhetorically  and  pompously,  others  explaim  more 
briefly,  in  accordance  with  the  oral  teaching  of  Manes,  and  with  the  books  of 


The  Passive  Jcsvs  lihcrated,  386 

Manlchasans.  Among  these,  are  Tyrho,  (in  the  Acta  An-liohii,  p.  13,  14.)  nnd 
Cyrill  of  Jerusalem.  Tyrbo  says  :  Virgo  qucedam  decora  et  exornata,  I'h'gans 
valde,  furto  appetit  Principes  (masculos,)  qui  sunt  in  fu-mamento  a  vlvente 
Spiritu  educti  et  crucifixi,  quoe,  cum  apparuerit,  maribus  Ibemina  decora  apparet: 
foeminis  vei-o  adoleseentem  speciosum  ct  concupiscibilem  demonstrat.  Sod 
principes  quidem  (masculi)  cum  earn  vidcrint  exornatam,  amore  ejus  in  Ul)i(ii. 
nem  moventur:  (All  tiiis,  we  have  heard  Manes  himself  say:  what  [p.  881.] 
follows,  is  not  so  clearly  stated  by  him.)  et  quia  earn  apprchendere  non  pos- 
sunt,  vohementer  instigantur  amoris  incendiis  excitati :  rapti  sunt  enim  libidinis 
calore ;  cum  enim  currentibus  post  earn  anxii  effecli  fuissent,  virgo  subito  nus- 
quam  comparuit.  Tunc  princeps  ilie  magnus  produeit  nebulas  ex  semetipso, 
uti  obscuret  in  ira  sua  omnem  mundum,  qui  cum  tribulatus  fuerit  plurimum, 
sicut  homo  sudat  post  laborem,  ita  et  hie  Princeps  sudat  ex  tribulatione  sua, 
cujus  sudor  pluviac  sunt:  (which  are  often  preceded  by  thunders  and  light- 
nings.) Cyrill  also,  (Cateches.  vi.  §34.  p.  110.)  more  concisely:  Imbres  ex 
amatorio  oestu  oriri  statuunt,  audentque  dicerc,  esse  quamdam  in  coelo  specio- 
sam  virginem  cum  juvene  formoso  -  -  illam  (virginem)  fugere  aiunt,  istum  per- 
sequi,  atque  inde  sudorem  emittere,  (^uo  ex  sudore  imbrem  exsistere.  Hsec  in 
Manicheeorum  libris  scripta  sunt.  Ea  nos  leglmus,  dum  narrantibus  nolumus 
fidem  habere.  These  absurd  notions  of  the  origin  of  rain,  lightning  and  thun- 
der, induced  the  ]\ranichKans,  when  it  thundered  and  lightened,  not  like  other 
Christians  to  implore  the  divine  clemency  by  prayers,  but  to  curse  the  Prince 
of  darkness,  whose  voice  they  supposed  they  heard.  This  we  learn  from  Cyrill^ 
(1.  cit.  p.  110.) :  Tonat  Deus  ct  contremiscimus  omnes:  isti  autem  in  blasphe- 
mas  voces  erumpunt :  (That  is,  they  curse  the  author  of  the  thunder.)  Ful- 
gurat  Deus,  omnesque  nos  in  terram  procumbimus:  illi  autem  de  coelis  con 
vicia  jactant :   Trtfl  ovpavdv  ra;  S'va-pifAas  i^ovs-t  yXuiTTas. 

§  LIL     Destrnction  of  the  World  and  Consummation  of  all  things. 

When  the  greatest  part  of  souls  shall  have  been  recalled  to  the 
world  of  light,  and  of  course  the  human  race  be  reduced  to  a  few 
persons,  when  the  celestial  matter  dispersed  through  our  world 
shall  in  various  ways  have  been  extracted,  and  no  souls  remain 
on  earth,  except  such  as  can  in  no  way  be  purgated  and  reformed ; 
then  will  God  remove  the  walls  and  ramparts  by  which  the  evil 
fire  is  inclosed ;  and  that  fire,  bursting  from  its  caverns,  will  burn 
up  and  destroy  the  fabric  of  the  world.  At  the  same  time 
Omophorus  will  withdraw  his  shoulders  from  it,  and  will  suffer 
this  dirty,  depraved  mass,  now  divested  of  all  life,  to  be  con- 
sumed. After  this,  the  Princes  of  darkness,  being  deprived  of 
all  celestial  matter  or  light,  will  be  compelled  to  return  to  their 
own  wretched  country  :  and  in  that  dreary  world  they  will  for- 
ever remain.(')  And  to  prevent  their  again  invading  the  world 
of  light,  God  will  guard  the  orb  of  darkness  with  a  very  strong 

26 


386  Century  III.— Section  52. 

[p.  882.]  force :  for  those  souls,  whose  reformation  and  salvation 
are  despaired  of,  like  a  cordon  of  soldiers,  will  surround  the  world 
of  darkness  and  guard  its  frontiers,  lest  its  wretched  inhabitants 
should  again  issue  forth  and  invade  the  realm  of  light.Q 

(1)  Our  world  was  created  of  God,  only  th.it  the  good  matter  mixed  with 
evil  might  be  gradually  detached;  and  especially,  that  the  souls,  those  daugh- 
ters of  eternal  light,  which  by  the  crafty  Prince  of  Darkness  had  been  inclosed 
in  bodies,  might  be  liberated  from  their  prison.  This  arduous  business  being 
completed,  and  the  greatest  part  of  the  good  matter  being  restored  to  its  origi- 
nal state,  nothing  will  remain  but  a  deformed  mass,  filthy,  vile  and  sterile,  which 
ought  to  be  thrown  back  whence  it  came.  Therefore,  when  God  shall  have 
accomplished  his  object  and  recovered  his  treasures  plundered  by  the  evil  Prin- 
ciple, a  conflagration  of  this  world  will  ensue.  That  immensely  great  Angel, 
Omophorus,  who  sustains  the  world  on  his  shoulders,  being  notified  by  God  that 
the  consummation  of  all  things  is  at  hand,  will  cast  down  his  burden,  the  evil 
fire  will  burst  its  barriers,  and  will  consume  the  whole  fabric ;  and  all  things 
will  return  to  their  original  state.  God,  with  the  Beings  begotten  of  him,  will 
lead  a  life  of  blessedness  in  the  world  of  light:  and  the  Prince  of  darkness, 
with  his  associates  and  friends,  will  lead  a  life  of  wret^jliedness  in  the  world  of 
darkness.  Says  Tyrbo,  (in  the  Acta  Disput.  Archelai,  ^  11.  p.  21):  Post  hsec 
omnia,  ad  ultimura  Senior  cum  manifestam  fecerit  ejus  imaginem,  tunc  ipse 
Omophorus  extra  se  terram  derelinquit,  et  ita  dimittitur  magnus  ille  ignis  (that 
evil  fire,  which  the  Living  Spirit  east  out  of  this  world,  when  he  formed  the 
earth,  and  inclosed  within  strong  ramparts  or  mounds,  and  in  which  the  very 
wicked  souls  that  would  not  be  reformed  have  been  for  a  time  tormented,)  qui 
mundum  consumat  universum.  -  -  Tunc  autem  hasc  fient,  cum  statuta  venerit 
dies.  What  is  here  said  of  an  Elder's  exhibiting  his  image,  is  very  obscure. 
But  this  much  is  obvious,  that  by  this  Elder,  whoever  he  may  be,  God  will  sig- 
nify to  the  world-bearing  Atlas,  called  OmophoruSj  that  the  end  of  the  world 
has  come.  And  on  learning  this,  the  huge  giant  will  quit  his  position,  and 
throw  down  his  load,  as  he  had  long  and  ardently  wished  to  do.  Tyrbo,  soon 
after,  proceeds :  Post  hsec  restitutio  erit  duarum  naturarum,  (the  Latin  vers^ioa 
has  :  duorum  luminarium,  i.  e.  of  the  sun  and  moon :  Extremely  erroneous.  la 
the  Greek  of  Epiphanius,  we  correctly  read  :  'ATrcKardcrrao-ti  tuv  /yo  <p6<riccv 
The  sun  and  the  moon  need  no  restoration.  The  ducc  nalurcc,  in  the  style  of 
Manichseans,  are  the  hvo  first  principles  of  all  things,  good  and  evil.  The  im- 
port of  the  passage  therefore  is :  Those  two  natures  (or  substances)  will  then 
return  to  their  original  state,  or  that  in  which  they  were  before  the  war  between 
the  good  and  evil  Principles :)  et  Principes  habitabunt  in  inferioribus  partibus 
suis :  (in  the  world  of  darkness,  where  they  dwelt  before  the  war :)  Pater  au- 
tem (God)  in  superioribus,  (in  the  world  of  light,)  qua?  sua  sunt  recipiens : 
[p.  883.]  (i.  e.  after  all  the  celestial  matter  which  the  princes  of  darkness  had 
seized,  shall  have  returned  to  him.) — The  burning  of  our  world  will  be  slow 
and  of  long  continuance.  For  Tyrbo  says,  that  all  those  celestial  Beings,  who 
were  concerned  in  the  government  of  our  world,  and  also  the  Living  Spirit,  the 


Consummation  of  all  things.  387 

framer  of  the  world,  will  reside  in  the  sun  and  moon,  until  the  whole  fabric  is 
consumed.  And  he  adds,  that  he  had  not  learned  from  Manes,  how  many  years 
the  burnintr  would  continue.  Mnjori  in  navi  (the  sun,)  vivens  Spiritus  (the 
world-builder,)  adhibetur,  et  Murus  illius  ignis  magni  (the  Angel,  the  'niardian 
of  hell  tire,  who  keeps  watch  lest  this  evil  fire  should  burst  from  its  caverns 
before  the  appointed  time,)  et  Murus  venti  (the  Angel,  who  guards  the  winds) 
et  aeris,  et  aquae,  et  interioris  ignis  vivi  (i.  e.  boni.  Each  of  tlie  elements  had 
its  superintending  Angel,  or  keeper  and  governor. — )  qua?  omnia  in  lunu  habita- 
bunt,  usque  quo  totum  niundum  ignis  absumat ;  in  quot  autem  annis,  numerura 
non  didici.  And  I  suppose,  Manes  himself  did  not  know  the  number  of  these 
years. — This  whole  statement  of  Tyrbo  is  confirmed  by  nearly  all  the  ancient 
writers.  Alexander  of  Lycopolis,  (contra  Manichaeos,  p.  5.)  adds  moreover,  that 
this  fire  which  is  to  consume  the  world,  will  also  consume  itself;  which  it  is 

difficult  to  conceive  :  'Ava^a^pia-B-iia-Hs  ths  d-iias  S'vvafAicci  TO  l^co  Tr-jp,  (pari,  <rufx- 
TTiTov  iavrd   Kal    aKKo   (rvfATravy   o   tI  cTe   av  hiiTrirai  tmj    uA.«?,   (Tuyx.ara'PKt'riiv.     Se- 

gregata  vero  a  materia  omni  virtute  coelesti,  crumpet  ignis  externus,  et  seme- 
tipsum  una  cum  omni,  qua)  restat,  materia,  eonsumet.  The  same  thing  appears 
to  be  stated,  though  less  distinctly,  by  Titus  of  Bostra,  (Contra  Manicheeos,  L. 
ii.)  But  I  omit  this  passage,  to  avoid  needless  prolixity. — The  time  or  day  of 
this  conflagration  of  the  world  and  restoration  of  all  things,  none  of  the  ancient 
writers  has  indicated.  But  a  modern  writer,  Hebed  Jesu,  an  Armenian,  (apud 
Assemanum,  Biblioth.  Orient.  Clement.  Vatic.  Tom.  iii.  P.  ii.  p.  361.)  affirms, 
that  the  Manicha^ans  believed :  Fore,  ut  in  die  Dominico  hoc  sccculum  habeat 
interitum,  dissolutionemque  omnem  post  circulum  novera  mille  annorum.  But 
as  this  statement  is  neither  confirmed  nor  contradicted  by  any  other  writer,  it 
must  be  held  doubtful. 

(2)  The  God  of  the  Manichaeans  was  cautious  and  provident,  but  imbecile, 
or  of  moderate  power.  And  he  had  reason  to  fear,  lest  the  Prince  of  darkness, 
although  once  vanquished,  would  again  venture  to  invade  the  world  of  light;  and 
if  h€  should  do  so,  the  same  tragedy  as  in  the  former  war,  would  undoubtedly 
recur.  To  prevent  this  great  and  terrible  evil,  he  enrolled  a  powerful  army  of 
guards,  from  among  the  souls  which  would  not  be  purgated,  and  therefore  could 
not  return  to  the  world  of  light,  and  yet  could  not  be  given  over  to  the  kingdom 
of  darkness  because  possessed  of  a  divine  nature, — of  these  souls,  I  say,  he 
formed  an  army,  which  should  valiantly  resist  the  counsels  and  machinations 
of  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  of  darkness,  and  prevent  their  passing  beyond 
their  frontiers.  As  before  shown,  the  souls  which  have  twice  passed  through  five 
successive  bodies  without  being  reclaimed,  are  sent  to  hell,  to  be  tor-  [p.  884.] 
mented  in  the  evil  fire  until  the  end  of  the  world.  When  the  world  is  about  to 
be  destroyed,  they  will  be  drawn  forth  from  hell,  and  be  made  garrison  soldiers 
for  the  supreme  God,  or  guards  of  the  world  of  darkness.  To  these  will  bo 
added  the  souls,  which  the  last  day  will  find  still  resident  in  the  bodies  of  men, 
animals,  and  other  things;  for  these  also  are  such,  that  their  salvation  is  hope- 
less. Says  Manes,  in  the  second  Book  of  his  Thesaurus,  and  in  his  Epistoia 
Fundamenti,  (apud  Euodium,  de  fide  contra  Maniciiaeos,  c.  4.  p.  25.)  •'  Animao 
quae  negligentia  sua  a  labe  praedictorum  (malorum)  spirituum  purgari  se  minime 


Century  III. — Section  52. 

pormiserint,  mandatisque  divinis  ex  intergo  parum  obtemperaverint,  legemque 
sibi  a  8U0  liberatore  (Christ,)  datam  servare  plenius  noluerint,  neque  ut  docebat 
sese  gubernaverint,  quae  mundi  amore  errarc  se  a  oriori  sua  lucida  natura  passae 
sunt,  atque  iiiimicae  liimini  sancto  extiterunt  -  -  a  beatitudine  atque  gloria  ter- 
rae  sanctae  arceiitur.  Et  quia  a  malo  se  superari  passae  sunt,  in  cadem  mail 
stirpe  perseverabunt,  pacifica  ilia  terra  et  regionibus  immortalibus  sibimet  inter- 
dictis.  Quod  ideo  illis  eveniet,  quia  ita  iniquis  operibus  se  obstrinxerunt,  ut  a 
vita  et  libertate  sanctae  lucis  alieniantur.  Non  igitur  poterunt  recipi  in  regna 
ilia  pacifica,  sed  configentur  in  praedicto  horribili  globo,  cui  etiam  necesse  est 
custodiam  adhiberi.  Unde  adhaerebunt  his  rebus  animae  eaedem,  quas  dilexerunt, 
relictae  in  eodcm  tenebrarum  globo,  suis  raeritis  id  sibi  aequirentes.  When 
Augustine,  in.  his  second  Dispute  with  Felix  the  Manichaean,  (c.  15.  p.  351.)  had 
said,  that  according  to  the  opinion  of  Manes,  many  portions  of  the  divine  nature 
would  be  damned;  his  antagonist  denied  the  lact,  and  replied  in  these  words: 
Hoc,  quod  dixit  sanctitas  tua,  quia  pars,  quae  se  non  mundavit  ab  coinquinatione 
gentis  tenebrarum :  et  sic  dicit  Manichaeus,  quia  non  sunt  missi  in  regnum  Dei. 
Hoc  enim  asseris  tu,  quia  damnati  sunt:  Sed  Manichaeus  non  hoc  dicit,  quia 
damnati  sunt,  sed  ad  custodiam  positi  sunt  illius  gentis  tenebrarum.  Yet 
Auo-ustine  did  correctly  apprehend  the  sentiment  of  Manes;  as  appears  from 
several  passages,  but  especially  from  this  very  lucid  one,  (de  Haeres.  c.  46. 
p.  13.):  The  Manichaeans  say,  In  nobis  sanatum  hoc  vitium  (of  lust)  nunquam 
futurum;  sed  a  nobis  sejunctam  atque  seclusam  substantiam  istam  mali,  et  finite 
isto  saeculo  post  conflagrationem  mundi  in  globo  quodam,  tanquam  in  carcere 
sempiterno,  esse  victuram.  Cui  globo  affirmant  accessurum  semper  et  adhaesu- 
rum  quasi  coopertorium  atque  tectorium  ex  animabus,  natura  quidem  bonis, 
sed  quae  tamen  non  potuerint  a  naturae  malae  cogitatione  mundari.  If  we  es- 
timate the  doctrine  of  Manes  by  these  passages,  the  souls  whose  filthiness  pre- 
vents their  being  received  into  the  world  of  light,  will  be  stationed  within  the 
sphere  of  darkness,  or  on  its  exterior,  and  will  cover  the  whole  sphere  like  a 
[p.  885.]  garment  or  outer  covering,  so  as  to  leave  no  crevice  through  which  the 
inhabitants  can  escape.  But  Tyrho,  (in  the  Acta  Archelai,  p.  21.)  seems  to  in- 
dicate, that  those  impure  and  slothful  souls  will  have  their  station  or  camp,  not 
within  the  world  of  darkness,  but  on  the  intervening  space  between  the  world 
of  bliss  and  the  world  of  misery.  He  says:  Deinde  (in  the  end  of  the  world,) 
iterum  (dsemones)  dimittunt  animam,  (or  rather  animas,  which  were  detained  in 
the  evil  fire,)  quae  objicitur  (is  opposed  to  the  demons,)  inter  medium  novi  sao- 
culi  (the  world  of  light,)  ut  omnes  jinimse  peccatorum  vinciantur  in  reternnm. 
But  the  two  opinions  are  not  so  different,  as  to  be  utterly  irreconcilable. 

I  have  bestowed  much  labor  on  the  explanation  of  the  Manichaean  system, 
for  more  reasons  than  one.  None  of  all  the  sects  that  arose  among  Christians, 
was  more  difficult  to  be  suppressed  than  this ;  and  it  still  exists,  notwithstand- 
ing it  is  regarded  as  vile  and  hateful  by  the  Mohammedans  as  well  as  Christians. 
Perhaps  also  the  books  of  Manes  are  preserved  to  the  present  day,  and  read  by 
his  many  followers  in  the  eastern  countries.  There  have  also  been,  and  still  are 
numerous  discussions  among  learned  men,  respecting  this  singular  form  of  re- 
ligion.    Some  regard  it  as  not  altogether  nonsense  and  folly,  but  as  very  dex- 


Manichcean  Public    Worship.  389 

terously  solving  all  difficulties  respecting  the  origin  of  evil;  while  othcis  look 
Upon  it  as  perfectly  absurd,  and  more  worthy  of  brute  animals  than  of  men. 
The  candid  man  will  acknowk'dge,  tliat  the  system  as  a  whole,  and  in  a  general 
view,  displays  ingenuity,  that  it  deduces  all  its  doctrines  from  a  very  few  prin- 
ciples, which  have  a  great  appearance  of  plausibility,  and  that  all  the  parts  of  the 
system  are  harmoniously  consistent.  But  if  we  examine  it  minutely,  we  shall 
find  in  it  much  that  is  silly,  trifling,  and  fabulous.  For  Manes^  finding  that  he 
could  not  well  explain  all  the  changes  and  operations  in  nature  from  the  few 
principles  he  had  admitted,  was  compelled  to  tax  his  ingenuity  to  invent  and  de- 
vise fables,  in  order  to  solve  by  means  of  the  imagination,  what  could  not  be 
solved  by  reason.  Moreover,  the  most  discerning  and  ingenious  of  the  Mani- 
chaeans  themselves  have  admitted,  that  some  of  their  master's  dogmas  could  not 
be  explained  and  demonstrated  sati.slactorily.  And  among  these  dogmas,  they 
name  in  particular,  that  of  two  first  'principles  of  all  things,  or,  as  they  call 
them,  two  natures;  and  the  doctrine  of  the  new  age  or  world,  (de  novo  saeculo,) 
and  some  others.  Yet  they  contended,  that  these  dogmas,  although  above  hu- 
man reason,  were  to  be  simply  believed,  because  revealed  to  us  by  God.  Thus 
Secundinus  writes  to  Augustine,  (p.  371.):  lllud  tamen  notum  fiicio  tuae  saga- 
cissimae  bonitati,  quia  sunt  qnredam  res,  quce  sic  exponi  non  possnnt,  ut  intel- 
ligantur:  exeedit  enim  divina  ratio  mortalium  pectora:  ut  puta  hoc  ipsum,  quo- 
modo  sint  duae  nature,  aut  quare  pugnaverit  (Deus)  qui  nihil  poterat  pati,  nee 
non  etiam  de  saeculo  novo,  quod  idem  memorat.  What  Manes  taught  respect- 
ing a  new  age  or  world,  like  several  other  things  pertaining  to  his  system,  is  at 
this  day  almost  wholly  unknown. 

§  LIII.  Public  Worship  among  Manichaeans.  The  mode  [p.  886.] 
of  public  worship  among  the  Manich{:cans  was  very  simple. 
They  had  no  temples  or  houses  dedicated  to  God,  no  altars,  no 
images,  no  love^feasts,  nor  any  of  the  ceremonies  usually  prac- 
tised by  other  Christians*  When  assembled  they  prayed  to  God 
with  becoming  devoutness,  but  with  their  faces  turned  towards 
the  sun.  They  sung  hymns  in  praise  of  God,  of  the  sun  and 
moon,  and  of  the  principal  ^ons;  read  the  books  of  Ifanes, 
especially  his  Epistola  Fundamenti ;  and  heard  exhortations  from 
their  teachers,  enjoining  the  renunciation  and  subjugation  of  sin- 
fal  desires.  They  observed  Sunday  as  a  sacred  day,  but  abstained 
wholly  from  food  on  that  day.  Among  their  annual  holy  days, 
the  most  noted  was  the  Bema,  the  day  on  which  they  honored 
with  great  solemnity  the  memory  of  their  master,  who  was  cruelly 
slain  by  the  king  of  Persia.  The  Christian  festivals  cornmemo- 
rative  of  the  birth  and  baptism  of  the  Saviour,  they  did  not  ob- 
serve ;  because  they  denied  that  Christ  was  cither  born  or  bap- 
tized.    Easter   they  observed  with  other  Christians,   but  with 


890  Century  IIL—Section  53. 

little,  or  rather  with  no  ceremony.  For,  believing  that  Christ 
only  feigned  death  and  a  return  to  life,  they  supposed  that  short 
services  were  all  that  the  day  required. (') 

(1)  Of  the  simple  m:inner  iti  which  the  Manichaeans  worshipped  God, 
Fausius  the  Manichaean  discourses  exultingly,  (apnd  Avgustinuw,  L.  xx.  c.  1. 
torn.  viii.  p.  238  &.c.);  and  as  AngiisLvie  in  his  reply  charges  him  with  no  mis- 
representation, his  statements  are  undoubtedly  correct.  Some  one  had  objected, 
that  the  M anichaeans  were  a  sect  of  Pagans  and  Gentiles.  This  charge  Faustus 
first  answers,  by  showing  that  there  was  a  very  wide  difference  between  Mani- 
chaeans  and  the  Gentiles.  He  says ;  Mea  opinio  et  eultus  longe  alia  sunt,  quara 
paganorum.  -  -  Pagani  aris,  delubris,  simulacris,  victimis  atque  incenso  Deum 
colendum  putant.  Ego  ab  his  multum  diversus  incedo,  qui  ipsum  me,  si  mode 
sum  dignus,  rationabile  Dei  templum  puto:  vivum  vivae  majestatis  simulacrnm 
Christum  filium  ejus  accipio:  aram,  mentem  bonis  artibus  et  disciplinis  imbutam, 
honores  quoque  divinos  ac  sacrificia  in  solis  orationibus,  et  ipsis  puris  et  simpli- 
cibus,  pono.  The  Manichaeans,  therefore,  had  no  temples  or  houses  consecrated 
to  God;  and  no  images  either  of  God  or  saints:  Christ  to  them  was  in  place  of 
all  visible  representations.  Neither  had  they  altars.  And  lastly,  the  principal 
[p.  887.]  part  of  their  worship  consisted  in  prayers  to  God,  and  those  prayers 
pwe  and  simple.  If  this  last  clause  is  true, — and  that  it  is  so  I  will  presently 
show  by  other  testimony, — then  it  is  manifest,  that  all  rites  and  ceremonies 
w^ere  excluded  from  their  worshipping  assemblies,  except  only  the  custom  of 
turning  the  face  towards  the  sun  in  prayer.  In  this  matter,  as  in  many  others, 
Manes  followed  the  example  of  his  countrymen  the  Persians.  For  it  appears 
from  the  testimonies  of  Herodotus  and  others,  collected  by  Barnabas  Brissonius, 
(de  regio  principatu  Persarum,  L.  ii.  ^  28.  p.  360  &,c.)  that  the  Persians  deemed 
it  next  to  insanity,  to  dedicate  temples,  images,  and  altars  to  the  gods. — Having 
vindicated  his  sect  from  this  calumny,  he  turns  his  artillery  in  another  direction, 
and  endeavors  to  prove  that  the  Christians  were  more  truly  a  sect  of  Pagans. 
In  doing  this,  he  again  testifies  that  the  Manichaeans  disregarded  and  despised 
the  ceremonies  usual  among  otiier  Christians  in  that  age,  and  were  studious  of 
simplicity  in  the  W'orship  of  God.  He  says:  Vos  sacrificia  (gentium)  mutastis 
in  agapas:  (The  Manichaeans  therefore  omitted  altogether  those  feasts  of  love, 
which  the  other  Christians  celebrated.)  Vos  vertistis  idola  in  martyres,  quos 
votis  similibus  colitis:  (The  Manichaeans  therefore  paid  no  honors  or  worship 
to  martyrs,  they  kept  no  images  of  them,  and  they  did  not  observe  their 
Nalalitia,  or  the  days  consecrated  to  their  memory.)  Vos  defunctorum  umbras 
vino  placatis  et  dapibus :  (This  cuts  the  Christians  of  those  times,  who  carried 
wine  and  food  on  certain  days  to  the  sepulchres  of  the  martyrs,  and  there  held 
feasts.)  Vos  solennes  gentium  dies  cum  ipsis  celebratis,  ut  kalendas  et  solstitia : 
(Therefore  the  Manichaeans  abhorred  the  practice  of  the  Christians,  after  the 
time  of  Constantino  the  Great,  of  annexing  the  Christian  rites,  and  in  a  sense 
giving  consecration,  to  the  festal  days  of  the  Pagans.)  De  vita  certe  mutastis 
nihil.  All  these  things  Augustine  endeavors  to  excuse ;  but  he  denies  nothing. — 
As  the  Manichaean  worship  consisted  chiefly  in  prayers,  they  called  their  wor- 


Arcane  Worship  of  the  Fleet.  301 

flliippinof  nssemblies  the  prayer.  This  we  learn  from  Forlunat.us,  a  !Manichacan 
(in  Ills  first  Dispute  willi  Avqnsline,  p.  69.)  who  inquired  of  Augustine:  Inler- 
fuisti  (nostrae)  orationi?  And  Augustine  replied:  Interfui.  The  subsequent 
remarks  plainly  show,  tiuit  IManiehaean  assemblies  for  public  worsliip  were  in- 
tended. And  it  is  worthy  of  special  notice,  that  Augustine  confesses  that 
nothing  reprehensible  occurr<'d  in  their  worshipping  assemblies.  He  disapproves 
of  only  one  thing,  namely,  their  turning  their  faces  to  the  sun  in  prayer.  He 
savs:  Quanivis  orationi  vestrae  interfuerim,  utrum  separatim  vobiscum  habeatis 
aliam  orationem,  (They  certainly  had  other  worship,  as  Augustine  himself  in- 
forms us  soon  after;  nor  does  Foriunatus  deny  it,)  Deus  solus  potest  nosse  et 
vos.  Ego  tamen  in  oratione,  in  qua  interfui,  nihil  turpe  fieri  vidi,  sed  solum 
contra  fideni  animadverti,  -  -  quod  contra  solera  facitis  orationem.  Praeter  hoc 
in  ilia  oratione  vestra  nihil  novi  comperi.  On  other  points  here  stated,  we  have 
heretofore  treated,  so  that  we  need  not  again  remark  upon  them. 

§  LIY.  The  exclusive  Worship  of  the  Elect.  Baptism  and  [p.  888.] 
the  sacred  Supper.  Besides  the  public  assemblies,  in  which  the  Elect 
or  perfect  and  the  Auditors  or  imperfect  met  together,  other  and 
more  private  conventions  for  religious  objects  were  held  exclu- 
sively bj  the  little  band  of  the  Meet.  AVhat  was  done  in  these 
private  conventions,  or  in  what  manner  God  was  there  worshipped, 
is  not  known  at  the  present  day  ;  the  books  of  the  sect  being  lost, 
or  at  least  not  being  known .(')  To  the  arcane  or  private  worship 
of  the  Manicha^ans,  pertained  baptism  and  the  sacred  Sup2m\ 
Baptism,  the  Manichseans  held  to  be  a  mere  ceremony,  which 
conveyed  no  benefit  whatever  to  the  soul.  They  did  not  admit 
that  Christ  was  baptized  ;  and  their  fundamental  principles  for- 
bid their  believing  that  any  efficacy  existed  in  water  for  purify- 
ing the  divine  soul,  the  offspring  of  God.  Hence  they  did  not 
require  their  people  to  receive  baptism :  but  if  any  of  the  Elect 
desired  a  lustration  by  water,  the  leaders  of  the  sect  did  not  op- 
pose their  wishes.C^)  Of  the  sacred  Supper  of  the  Elect,  nothing 
scarcely  is  known  at  the  present  day  :  for  the  horrid  and  obscene 
rites  of  it,  reported  by  many  of  the  ancients,  lack  authority,  cre- 
dibility, and  probability ;  and  the  genuine  followers  of  Manes 
cannot  be  taxed  with  them,  without  extreme  injustice.(^) 

(1)  Says  Augustine^  (Disput.  I.  cum  Fortunato,  Opp.  tom.  viii.  p.  68.)  :  De 
moribus  vestris  plene  scire  possunt,  qui  Electi  vestri  sunt.  Nosti  autem,  mc 
non  Electum  vestrum,  sed  Auditorem  fuisse.  -  -  Quisquis  autem  vobis  oj)ponit 
quaestionem  aliquam  de  moribus,  Electis  vestris  opponit.  Quid  autem  inter 
vos  agatis,  qui  Electi  estis,  ego  scire  non  possum.  Nam  et  Eucharisliam  audivi 
a  vobis  saepe,  quod  accipiatis  :  (It  is  manifest  from  this  language  lh.it  tlio  Eu 


392  Century  III.— Section  54. 

charist  pertained  to  the  arcane  mysteries  of  the  BlecU  and  that  the  Audifors 
were  not  admitted  to  it,)  tempus  autem  accipiendi  cum  me  lateret,  quid  aecipi- 
atis,  unde  nosse  potui  ?  All  these  remarks  Fortunatus  passes  by,  and  there- 
fore approves,  or  tacitly  acknowledges  them  to  be  true.  Moreover,  there  is 
other  evidence  which  puts  it  beyond  controversy,  that  the  Elect  hold  secret 
meetings,  from  which  the  Auditors  were  excluded. 

(2)  Respecting  6ap/ism  among  Manichaeans,  learned  men  have  disngreed; 
some  affirm  that  they  practised  it,  others  deny  it,  and  others  combine  the 
two  opinions  in  some  way.  The  cause  of  this  disagreement  is  in  Augustine; 
who  seems  in  some  places  to  teach,  that  the  Manichaeans  despised  baptism, 
while  other  passages  are  extant,  and  some  of  tliem  in  Augustine,  which  bid  us 
believe  the  contrary.  Tillemonte,  (in  his  Memoires  pour  servir  a  I'Histoire  de 
[p.  889.]  FEglise,  tom.  iv.  p.  948.)  thinks  the  difficulty  cannot  be  surmounted, 
except  by  supposing  that  the  Manichaeans,  sometimes,  and  inconsiderately,  {far 
fantaisie)  when  the  bishops  happened  to  take  it  into  their  heads,  practised  bap- 
tism ;  but  at  other  times,  when  their  leaders  deemed  it  expedient,  they  neglected 
baptism.  But  it  is  wholly  incredible,  that  a  thing  of  this  nature  should  be 
regulated  by  no  rules  among  them,  and  should  be  left  altogether  to  the  caprice 
of  the  bishops.  Beausohrc,  (in  his  Histoire  du  Manichee,  tom.  ii.  p.  715,  &c.) — 
if  I  do  not  mistake, — inconsiderately  cuts  the  knot,  which  he  would  gently  un- 
tie. For  he  tells  us,  that  Augustine  has  deceived  us :  and  he  contends,  that 
the  Manichaeans  not  only  baptized,  but  attributed  to  baptism  a  purifying  influ- 
ence on  the  soul,  and  for  that  reason  they  also  bnptized  infants.  This  extraor- 
dinary man  would  have  judged  differently,  I  apprehend,  if  he  had  more  care- 
fully considered  the  passages  of  Augustine  and  others  on  the  subject,  and  had 
compared  them  with  each  other. — Augustine  no  where  says,  what  learned  men 
consider  him  as  saying. — I  will  try,  if  I  can  disentangle  this  subject,  and  lay 
open  the  true  character  of  Manicha3an  baptism. 

First :  Baptism  was  undoubtedly  practised  among  the  Manicha3ans.  The 
first  witness  to  this  fact  is  Cyrill  of  Jerusalem,  (Cateches.  VI.  ^  33.  p.  109.)  He 

says  :     'Ov    toXuc^   iirl   dvS'poiv  Xat  yvvaiKuiv   to   Xvrpov   dvrcov  ^iny^(racr^-ai.      Liavac- 

rum  eorum  coram  viris  et  mulieribus  enarrare  non  audeo.  Seeing  that  the  com- 
mon bathing  was  prohibited  among  the  Manichaeans,  as  we  have  already  shewed, 
the  wordKvTpdv  must  here  necessarily  mean  baptism.  Besides,  Cyrill  connects 
this  WTpov  with  the  siicred  Sapper.  He  therefore  here  criminates  the  Mani- 
cha3ans  for  immersing  males  and  females  entirely  naked,  in  the  presence  of  both 
men  and  women.  If  this  were  the  fact,  which  for  many  reasons  I  doubt,  they 
certainly  offended  against  the  laws  of  decency  and  modesty. — The  second  wit- 
ness is  Felix  the  Manichaean,  who,  in  his  first  Dispute  with  Augustine,  (c.  19. 
p.  344.)  derives  an  argument  from  baptism,  in  proof  of  the  existence  of  an  evil 
Principle  opposed  to  a  good  one  :  Si  adversarius  nullus  contra  Deum  est,  ut 
quid  (perhaps  it  should  read  :  ad  quid)  baptizati  sumus  ?  Ut  quid  Eueharistia, 
ut  quid  Christianitas,  si  nihil  contra  Deum  est. — The  third  witness  is  Augustine, 
(de  moribus  eccles.  et  Manicha?or.  L.  i.  c.  35.)  The  passage  will  be  cited  here- 
after.— The  fourth  witness  is  Jerome,  who  bitterly  inveighs  against  Hilary,  a 
Roman  deacon,  because  he  had  received  into  the  church  persons  baptized  by 


JBapiisfns  among  Manicliaans.  393 

Manicliaeans ;  (Dialogo  contra  Luciferianos,  Opp,  torn.  iv.  p.  305.) :  Diacomis 
eras,  O  Hilari,  et  a  Maniehajis  baptizatos  recipiebas  1 — To  these  are  to  bo  added 
the  testimonies,  which  will  be  cited  to  prove,  that  baptized  Manichaians  when 
received  into  the  Romish  and  other  churches,  were  not  re-baptized. 

Secondly:  Yet  tlie  IManichaeans  attributed  to  baptism  no  salutary  influence 
on  the  soul;  and,  for  that  reason,  they  did  not  require  any  of  their  people  to 
receive  baptism.  With  this,  Augustine  sometimes  reproaches  them ;  [p.  890.] 
and  whoever  understands  the  opinions  of  the  sect,  will  readily  admit  his  charge. 
He  says:  (de  Haeres.  c.  46.  tom.  viii.  p.  13.):  Baptismum  in  aqua  nihil  cuiquam 
perhibent  salutis  afferre:  nee  quemquam  eorum,  quos  decipiunt,  baptizandum 
putant.  And  (contra  duas  Epistt.  Pelagianor.  L.  ii.  c.  2.  tom.  x.  p.  286.):  Ma- 
nichaei  lavacrum  regenerationis,  id  est,  aquam  ipsam  dicunt  esse  supcrfluam,  nee 
prodesse  aliquid  profano  corde  contendunt.  And,  (same  work,  L.  iv.  c.  4.  p.  310.) : 
Quid  eis  (Pelagianis)  prodest  Baptismum  omnibus  aetatibus  necessarium  conO- 
teri,  quod  Manichaei  dicunt  in  omni  aetate  superfluum.  And,  (contra  litteras 
Petiliani,  L.  iii.  c.  17.  tom.  ix.  p.  208,  209.)  Petelian  having  supposed,  that  bap- 
tism was  conferred  on  the  Manichaean  Auditors,  Augustine  confutes  him  thus : 
Petilianus,  quod  ei  placet  de  illorum  (Manichaeorum)  baptisrao  dicat  et  siribat, 
nesciens,  aut  nescire  se  fingens,  non  illic  ita  appellari  catechumenos,  tanquam 
eis  baptismus  quandoque  debeatur.  Those  learned  men,  who  infer  from  these 
and  some  similar  passages,  that  the  Manichaeans  held  all  baptism  in  abhorrence, 
see  in  the  passages  more  than  they  really  contain.  Augustine  merely  says,  that 
the  Manichaeans  did  not  baptize  those  who  came  over  to  their  church,  and  that 
they  accounted  baptism  to  be  a  mere  ceremony.  And  this  may  be  substantiated, 
not  only  from  Augustine,  but  from  the  language  of  Manes  himself,  (in  the  Acta 
Disput.  Archelai,  \  50.  p.  94.)  In  a  discussion  respecting  the  baptism  of  Christ, 
Archelaus  uses  this  language  to  Manes:  Baptisma  si  non  est,  ncc  erit  remissio 
peccatorum,  sed  in  suis  peccatis  unusquisque  morietur.  Manes,  on  hearing  this,  is 
surprised, and  asks  with  astonishment:  Ergo  baptisma  propter  remissionem  pec- 
catorum datur?  This  was  as  much  as  to  say:  You  tell  me  something  new  and 
unheard  of;  that  sins  are  forgiven  through  the  medium  of  baptism.  He  there- 
fore disbelieved  the  saving  influence  of  baptism.  Archelaus  replied  to  his 
question  ;  Etiam :  this  is  my  opinion.  And  Manes  craftily  uses  this  answer,  to 
disprove  the  baptism  of  Christ,  and  says:  Ergo  peccavit  Christus,  si  baptizatus 
est? — Fe//a:  the  Manichaean,  in  the  passage  recently  quoted,  seems,  indeed,  to 
admit,  that  there  is  some  virtue  in  baptism  against  the  Prince  of  evil.  But 
learned  men  have  long  since  remarked,  that  Felix  was  not  perfectly  acquainted 
with  the  religion  he  professed :  and  the  testimony  of  the  master  is  doubtless  of 
more  weight  than  that  of  the  disciple. 

Thirdly :  But  if  any  of  the  Elect  wished  to  be  baptized,  it  was  conceded  to 
them.  But  no  Auditor  could  receive  baptism.  These  propositions  will  he  clear 
and  beyond  all  controversy,  if  it  can  be  shown, — I.  that,  among  iManichaians,  in- 
fants were  not  received  into  the  church  by  baptism; — II.  that  the  Auditors  were 
not  admitted  to  baptism  : — and  III.  that  all  tlie  Elect  were  not  baptized,  l)ut  it 
was  left  optional  with  each  of  them,  to  receive  baptism  or  not. — I.  Beau-  [p.  891.] 
sobre,  among  others,  (vol.  ii.  p.  718  &.c.)  maintains,  that  all  Manichajans,  indis- 


394  Century  III. — Section  54. 

criminately,  and  infants  in  particular,  were  baptized  with  water.  In  proof  of  this 
opinion,  a  certain  passage  of  Augustine  is  adduced,  and  then  the  language  of 
Manes  himself  is  appealed  to.  Augustine,  in  his  work  opposed  to  two  Epistles 
of  Pelagius,  (L.  iv.  c.  3.  0pp.  torn.  x.  p.  309.)  seems  to  say,  that  Manes  believed 
infixnts  to  need  a  Saviour.  He  says:  Quapropter  utrosque  (the  Pelagians  and 
Manichseans)  damnat  atque  devitat,  quisquis  secundum  regulam  catholica;  fidei 
sic  in  hominibus  nascentibus,  de  bona  creaturii  carnis  et  animse  glorificat  Crea- 
torem,  quod  non  vult  Manichteus:  ut  tamen  propter  vilium,  quod  in  eos  per 
peccatum  prinii  hominis  pertransiit,  fateatur  et  parvulis  necessarium  Salvatorem, 
quod  non  vult  Pelagius.  In  the  last  clause  of  this  passage,  some  of  the  learned 
think,  Augustine  expounds  the  opinion  of  the  Manieha3ans.  But  this  is  much 
to  be  doubted.  For,  from  what  Pelagius  denied,  that  inflints  need  a  Saviour, 
it  never  can  be  inferred  that  the  Manichaeans  believed  the  contrary.  But,  sup- 
pose it  was  as  learned  men  think,  and  that  Manes,  according  to  the  testimony 
of  Augustine,  believed  that  infants  need  a  Saviour,  (which,  however,  for  several 
reasons,  is  not  credible,)  what  inference  can  be  drawn  from  it  ?  Can  we  reason 
thus:  Manes  believed  infants  to  need  a  Saviour,  and  therefore  Manes  required 
infants  to  be  baptized?  1  think  not.  For  the  first  proposition  may  be  true,  and 
yet  the  second  be  false. — A  stronger  argument  for  their  purpose,  seems  to  be 
found  in  the  language  of  Manes  in  his  Epistle  to  his  daughter  Henoch,  (apud 
Augustinum,  Opere  imperf.  contra  Julianum,  L.  iii.  ^  187.  torn.  ii.  p.  833.) :  Qui 
(the  Catholic  Christians)  his  verbis  mihi  interrogandi  sunt:  Si  omne  malum 
actuale  est ;  ante  quam  malum  quispiara  agat,  quare  accipit  purificationem  aquae, 
cum  nullum  malum  egerit  per  se?  Aut  si  necdum  egit  et  purificandus 
est,  licet  eos  naturaliter  raalae  stirpis  pullulationem  ostendere,  illos  ipsos  quos 
amentia  non  sinit  intelligere  neque  quae  dicunt,  neque  de  quibus  affirmant.  A 
person,  on  reading  this  passage  cursorily,  might  easily  f^ill  into  the  belief,  that 
Manes  here  supposes  {'purificationem  aqucc)  baptism,  to  be  needful  and  salutary 
to  infants ;  but  on  a  closer  inspection,  he  will  change  his  opinion.  Manes  here 
argues  ad  hominem,  xar'  afS-paTov,  as  logicians  say,  from  the  belief  of  his  adver- 
saries, and  not  from  his  own  belief;  and  his  argument  is  this :  You  Catholics 
unwillingly  establish  what  I  teach,  namely,  that  evil  is  not,  as  you  say,  a  nega- 
tive thing,  or  nothing,  (nihil;  as  Secundinus,  in  his  Epistle  to  Augustine,  p.  369. 
explains  his  opinion  of  original  sin,)  but  something  actually  existing  and  present 
in  mankind.  For,  you  baptize  infants,  before  they  have  done  anything  evil,  in 
order,  as  you  say,  to  purify  them.  And  thereby,  you  admit  that  evil  really  ex- 
[p.  892.]  ists  in  infants,  before  they  have  acted  any  evil,  and  that  they  are 
(malcc  stirpis  pullulatio)  the  sprout  of  an  evil  root,  or  in  a  certain  sense  belong 
to  the  Prince  of  darkness,  and  are  the  work  of  his  hands.  And  in  this  manner 
Julian,  a  Pelagian,  who  was  opposing  Augustine,  understood  this  passage  of 
Manes.  He  says:  Audis  (Augustine,)  quomodo  convinciatur  nobis  (Manes)  ? 
Amentes  vocat,  nee  intelligentes  vel  quas  dicamus,  vel  quaj  affirmemus,  qui  malae 
stirpis  pullulationem  negemus,  cum  baptizemus  etiam  eos  purificante  aqua,  qui 
nullum  malum  egerint,  id  est,  parvulos.  Manes,  therefore,  was  laboring  to  con- 
fute the  Catholics  on  their  own  principles,  and  not  on  his  ! — II.  That  the  Audi- 
tors^ or  the  imperfect  among  the  Manichaeans,  were  not  admitted  to  baptism,  is 


Ba2Jtism   among   Manichccans.  395 

clearly  taught  by  Augustine;  who  was  one  of  their  Auditors  nine  years,  and 
therefore,  a  most  competent  witness.  In  his  work,  contra  Epistolum  Petiiiani 
(c.  17.  toni.  i.v.  p.  208,  209.)  he  most  explicitly  tenches,  that  Auditors  among  the 
Manichiieans  were  not  admissible  to  baptism,  or  that  it  was  not  their  cu.stoni  to 
baptize  them.  And  the  same  thing  is  manifest  from  the  very  ancient  work  en- 
titled, Commonitorium,  quomodo  ngendum  sit  cum  Manichseis  qui  convertuntur 
usually  ascribed  to  Augustine,  and  printed  with  his  works,  (torn.  viii.  Appendi.x, 
p.  34.)  For  we  clearly  lenrn  from  it.  that  Maniciiaaan  Auditors,  when  they  went 
over  to  the  Orthodox  Christians,  were  admitted  to  the  rank  of  Catechumens,  th:it 
is,  such  as  had  not  yet  been  baptized;  but  if  any  of  their  Elect,  who  hud  received 
baptism  among  the  Manichajans,  were  converted,  they  were  enrolled  among  the 
Penitents,  or  such  as  did  not  need  baptism.  Unusquisque  (of  the  converted 
Manichaeans,)  det  (to  the  bishop)  libellum  confessionis  et  pcrnitentiaj  sua  atque 
anathematis,  petens  in  ecclesia  vel  Catechumini,  (that  is,  if  he  had  been  an  Au- 
dilor  among  the  Manichaeans ;  as  appears  incontrovertibly  by  what  follows :) 
vel  Pceniteniis,  (that  is,  if  he  had  been  one  of  the  baptized  Elect;  which  also  will 
be  put  beyond  all  doubt,  by  what  I  shall  presently  quote,)  locum.  -  -  -  Nee 
facile  admittantur  ad  baptismum,  si  Catechumeni  sunt,  (Therefore  the  Auditors 
were  unbaptized  persons,  whose  place  among  Christians  was  that  of  Catechu- 
mens,) nee  ad  reconciliationem,  si  poenitentiae  locum  acceperint,  (For  to  the  Elect 
who  had  been  baptized  among  the  Manichceans,  the  church  did  not  deem  baptism 
to  be  necessary,  but  only  reconciliation  or  admission  to  fellowship,)  nisi  periculo 
mortis,  urgent  vel  si  eosaliquanto  tempore  probatos  esse,  cognoverit  episcopus. — III. 
All  the  Elect  among  Manichaeans  did  not  receive  baptism,  but  only  such  as  re- 
quested it.  This  also  is  demonstrated  by  the  same  Commonitorium,  which  ma- 
nifestly discriminates  between  the  bnptized  and  the  unbaptized  Elect:  Electis 
vero  eorum,  qui  se  converti  dicunt  ad  Catholicam  (idem,  etiamsi  et  ipsi  luTresim 
anathemaverint,  non  facile  dandae  sunt  littera3,  sed  cum  Dei  servis  esse  debebunt, 
sive  Clericis,  sive  Laicis  in  monasterio,  donee  appareant  penitus  ipsa  supersti- 
tione  caruisse :  et  tunc  vel  baptizentur,  si  non  fuerint  baptizati  (Therefore,  all 
the  Elect  were  not  baptized,)  vel  reconcilientur,  si  (being  already  baptized) 
poenitentiae  locum  acceperint. 

Fourthly:  Such  of  the  Elect  as  chose  to  be  baptized,  must  remain  in  [p.  893.] 
the  class  of  the  Elect,  and  might  not  change  their  manner  of  life.  The  mode  of 
life  prescribed  to  the  Elect,  was,  as  we  have  seen,  exceedingly  severe  and  dis- 
agreeable ;  and  those  who  found  by  experience,  that  they  could  not  endure  its 
rigors,  might  pass  over  to  the  class  of  Auditors,  who  were  subjected  to  a  much 
milder  law.  But  those  who  received  baptism,  deprived  themselves  of  this  privi- 
lege, and  might  in  no  case  recede  from  their  adopted  rule  of  life.  This,  if  I  do 
not  wholly  misapprehend,  is  confirmed  by  Augustine,  (de  moribus  ecclesias  et 
Manichaeor.  L.  i.  c.  35.  tom.  i.  p.  631,  532.)  :  Quid  calumniamini  (vos  Mani- 
cha3i),  quod  fideles  jam  baptismate  renovati  procreare  filios,  et  agros  ac  doaios, 
pecuniamque  uUam  posidere  non  debeant?  Permittit  hoc  Paulus.  According 
to  the  Manichaean  principles,  baptized  persons  were  perpetually  bound  exclu- 
Bively  to  the  rigorous  rules  of  the  Elect,  which  forbid  their  i)rocreatiiig  chihiren, 
or  possessing  any  property  whatever.     But  we  have  shown,  tiiat  all  the  Elect 


896  Century  Ill.—Seciion  54. 

did  not  receive,  baptism  :  we  must  therefore  conclude,  that  such  ones  might  re- 
linquish that  rule  of  life.  And  this,  doubtless,  was  the  reason  why  all  the 
Elect  did  not  desire  baptism. 

With  what  forms  and  rites  the  Manichaeans  baptized  their  Elect,  who  were 
doubtless  esteemed  holier  and  better  than  other  people,  no  one  of  the  ancients 
has  informed  us :  for  this  was  a  part  of  the  sacred  arcana  of  the  sect.  But 
learned  men  very  justly  suppose,  they  baptized  with  water,  and  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit.  We  have  already  seen,  from  the  Commoni- 
torium  ascribed  to  Augustine,  that  the  baptized  Elect  were  admitted,  by  the 
Latin  church,  among-  Penitents,  and  were  not  to  be  again  baptized.  And  this  is 
confirmed  by  an  Epistle  of  Leo  the  Great,  (Epist.  viii.  ad  episcopos  per  Italiam, 
torn.  i.  p.  215.)  in  which  he  writes  that  he,  de  voragine  impietatis  suae  confessos, 
pcenitentiam  concedendo,  levasse  certain  Manichaean  doctors,  whom  he  found 
at  Rome :  and  he  makes  no  mention  whatever  of  a  renewed  baptism.  It  is 
also  confirmed  more  distinctly,  by  the  prayers  of  Augustine,  at  the  close  of  his 
book  de  natura  boni,  (c.  28.  p.  368.)  where  he  says :  Dona  nobis,  Deus,  ut  per 
nostrum  ministerium,  sicut  jam  muiti  (Manichaeorum)  iiberati  .sunt,  et  alii  libe- 
rcntur,  et  sive  per  sacramentum  sancii  baptismi  tui,  sive  per  sacrificium  contribu- 
lati  .spiritus  et  cordis  contriti  et  humiliati  in  dolore  pcenilentioe,  remissionem 
peccatorum  accipere  mereantur.  These  sentiments  accord  exactly  with  the 
Commonilorinm.  Some  Manichaeans  were  received  into  the  ciiurch,  by  bap- 
tism ;  and  others,  without  baptism,  by  mere  penitence,  Novv,  if  this  was  the 
fact,  the  two  following  things  were  undoubtedly  true  -.first,  that  not  all,  but  only 
some  Manichaeans  had  been  baptized  :  and  secondly,  that  the  Manichaeans  who 
had  received  Manichaean  baptism,  were  not  again  baptized,  but  were  merely 
I  p.  894.]  purified  by  penitence.  The  Latin  church  accounted  Manichaean  baptism 
legitimate  and  valid.  But  how  could  th'^y  so  esteem  it,  if  the  Manichaeans  bap- 
tized in  a  way  and  manner  different  fiora  that  prescribed  by  Christ  to  his  fol- 
lowers 1  For  the  Latins  accounted  all  baptisms  vain  and  useless,  in  which  any 
other  substance  than  water  was  employed,  or  in  which  the  names  of  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Spirit  were  not  used.  I  therefore  suppose,  Turibius,  (a  Spanish 
bishop  of  Astorga.)  must  have  been  misled  by  rumor  or  misapprehension,  when, 
in  an  Epistle  published  among  the  Epistles  of  Leo  the  Great,  (tom.  i.  p.  232.") 
he  states  that  the  Manichaeans  baptized  with  oil. 

(3)  The  passages  from  Felix  the  Manichaean,  and  Augustine,  which  I  re- 
cently quoted,  when  treating  of  baptism  and  the  sacred  rites  of  tiie  Elect,  de- 
monstrate that  the  Elect,  and  they  only,  among  the  Manichgeans,  celebrated  the 
holy  supper.  Augustine,  who  had  been  only  an  Auditor,  did  not  know,  what 
the  Elect  might  receive  in  the  holy  supper,  or  in  what  manner  the  supper  was 
administered.  This  portion  of  the  secret  worship  of  the  Manichaeans,  therefore, 
lies  wholly  in  the  dark.  Some  learned  men  have  conjectured,  that  they  used 
water  instead  of  wine  ;  because  it  was  not  lawful  for  the  Elect  to  drink  wine  : 
but  they  might  also  use  oil,  in  wuieh  they  supposed  much  celestial  matter  to  be 
latent.  Among  the  ancients  there  were  men  of  high  authority,  such  as  Cyrill 
of  Jerusalem,  Augustine,  and  Leo  the  Great,  not  to  mention  several  of  less 
character  and  fame,  who  report  that,  in  the  sacred  supper,  flour  or  figs  sprinkled 


Tlie  Lord's  Supper  among  them.  397 

witli  human  semen  was  presented  to  the  Elect  to  be  swallowed.  Says  Ani^ux. 
iine,  (de  hteres.  c.  46.  p.  11.):  Qua  oecasione  vel  potius  excerabilis  cujusdara 
superstitionis  necessitate,  coguntur  Electi  eorum  velut  EucharisMain  (the  flour: 
which  Cyrill  calls  11  fig,  or  a  dried  fg,  Cateches.  vi.  p.  110.)  conspersain  cum 
semine  humano  sumere,  ut  etiam  inde,  sicut  de  aliis  cibis,  quos  accipiunt,  sub- 
stantia ilia  divina  puroetur.  There  are  other  passages  of  Avgnstine,  in  which 
he  states  this  grave  charge  more  fully  :  but  they  need  not  be  cited.  The  very 
learned  patron  of  the  Manicha:^ans,  Deausobre,  (in  the  close  of  the  second  vol- 
ume  of  his  History  of  the  Manicha3ans,)  inquires  very  fully,  and  with  much  zeal 
and  ingenuit}^  into  the  truth  of  this  accusation;  and,  after  weighing  with  (M-cat 
care  all  the  arguments  and  testimonies,  he  pronounces  it  to  be  a  fabricated 
falsehood.  I  think  the  business  may  be  accomplished  in  a  more  summary  man- 
ner. In  the  first  place,  the  Manichccans  do  not  deny,  that  tliere  was  an  infa- 
mous and  filthy  set  of  people,  who  defiled  themselves  with  such  a  ceremony  ; 
but  they  most  strenuously  repel  the  base  charge  from  their  sect.  Augustine 
(loco  cit.)  says :  Sed  hoc  se  facere  negant,  et  alios  nescio  quos  sub  nomine  Ma- 
nichaeorum  flicere  affirmant.  And  a  little  after,  he  says,  that  a  certain  Mani- 
chaean,  named  Viator,  declared  before  a  judicial  court,  that  they  ivho  did  those 
things,  were  called  Catharista:. ;  that  they  originated  from  the  Manichasans,  and 
used  Manichasan  books,  yet  were  a  distinct  people  from  the  genuine  [p.  895.] 
Manichffians.  In  another  place,  (de  natura  boni,  c.  47.  p.  367.)  he  says :  Isti 
autem  cum  hoc  eis  objicitur,  solent  respondere,  nescio  quem  inimicum  suum  de 
numero  suo,  hoc  est,  Electorum  suorum,  descivisse  et  schisma  fecisse,  atque 
hujusmodi  spurcissimamliEeresininfecisse.  In  my  judgment,  confidence  in  this 
matter  is  to  be  reposed  in  the  Manichaeans,  who  best  understood  their  own  af- 
fairs. Some  one  may  say :  What  the  Manichseans  admit,  namely,  that  some 
among  them,  bearing  the  name  of  Manichaeans,  were  guilty  of  that  obscene 
conduct,  may  be  believed  ;  because  no  reason  can  be  assigned,  why  they  should 
fabricate  such  a  story.  But  the  other  part,  that  true  Manichaeans  abhorred  such 
conduct,  cannot  with  equal  safety  be  believed.  I,  however,  maintain,  that  the 
latter  also  may  be  received  as  true ;  and  this,  on  the  authority  of  Augustine 
himself.  For  he,  although  he  labors  in  several  passages  to  make  it  appear,  by 
arguments  and  testimony,  that  the  Manichaeans  were  not  so  innocent  in  this 
matter,  as  they  wished  to  be  accounted,  yet  in  other  places,  he  hesitates,  fluctu- 
ates, and  shows  plainly,  that  he  had  nothing  certain  to  guide  him.  And  this, 
in  my  judgment,  is  sufficient  to  establish  the  testimony  of  the  Manichaeans 
respecting  themselves.  Fortiinatus  the  Manichaean,  publicly  demanded  of  i4M- 
gustine,  either  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  stories  in  circulation  respecting  the 
sacred  supper  of  the  Manichaeans,  or  to  admit  their  falsehood.  He  says,  (torn, 
viii.  p.  68.) :  Falsis  criminibus  pulsamur.  Ex  te  ergo  praesentes  audiant  boni 
viri,  utrum  sint  vera,  super  quibus  criminamur  et  appetimin-,  an  sint  fals.i. 
Etenim  ex  tua  doctrina,  et  ex  tua  cxpositione  et  ostensione  poterunt  vcrius 
scire  nostram  conversationem,  si  a  te  fuerit  prodita.  Augustine  showed  fore- 
sight and  caution  by  declining  the  task  assigned  him  by  the  Manichaean  ;  and 
his  first  reply  is,  that  the  question  before  them  did  not  relate  to  the  morals  of 
the  Manichaeans,  but  to  their  faith.     But  Fortunatus  still  pcrsiHts,  and  bays, 


3y3  Century  III. — Section  55. 

that  it  is  necessary,  before  discussing  the  creed  of  the  Manichacans,  to  investi- 
gate their  moral  character,  which  appeared  to  many  to  be  most  base.  When 
driven  to  extremity,  Avgusline  acknowledges,  that  he  has  no  certain  knowledge 
of  the  morals  of  the  Manichaeau  Elect.  He  knew,  indeed,  that  the  Elect  at- 
tended the  sacred  supper;  but  what  they  received  there,  he  did  not  know:  Eu- 
charistiam  audivi  quod  accipiatis  :  quid  vero  accipiatis,  unde  nosse  potui?  This 
ingenuous  acknowledgment  of  his  ignorance,  destroys  all  the  force  of  those 
passages,  in  which  he  boldly  and  confidently  charges  the  Manichaeans  with  the 
shameful  conduct  above  mentioned.  In  another  place,  where  he  is  professedly 
inquiring  what  there  is  reprehensible  in  the  morals  and  usages  of  the  Manichae- 
ans, (de  moribus  Manichaeorum,  L.  ii.  c.  19.  torn.  1.  p.  551.)  he  again  very 
timidly  and  cautiously  touches  this  subject :  Quia  non  possunt  ab  Auditoribus 
vestris  talia  semina  (hominum  et  animalium)  vobis  purganda  offerri,  quis  non 
suspicelur^  (So  the  whole  thing  rests  on  suspicion!)  secretam  de  vobis  ipsis 
[p.  896.J  inter  vos  fieri  talera  purgationem,  et  ideo  illis  ne  vos  deserant,  occul- 
tari  ?  Quae  si  non  tacitis,  quod  uti nam  ita  sit.  (Who  can  suppose  the  man 
who  so  speaks,  is  stating  well  ascertained  facts?)  Videtis  tamen  quantae  sus- 
picioni  vestra  superstitio  pateat,  et  quam  non  sit  hominibus  succensendum  id 
opinantibus,  quod  de  vestra  professione  colligitur,  cum  vos  aniraam  per  escam 
et  potum  de  corporibus  et  sensibus  liberare  praedicatis.  Nolo  hie  diutius  im- 
morari :  et  videtis,  quantus  sit  invectionis  locus.  Sed  res  talis  est,  ut  eam  po- 
tius  reformidet  quam  insectetur,  oratio.  Thus  wrote  Augustine^  in  a  calm  and 
tranquil  state  of  mind.  When  warmed  by  passion,  he  speaks  more  confidently. 
But  the  utterance  of  the  sober  mind,  refutes  the  declarations  of  the  impassioned 
mind. 

§  LY.   Constitution  of  the  Manichaean  Church.   Tlie  organization 

of  the  community  established  by  Manes,  was  peculiar.  Over  the 
whole  community  an  individual  presided,  who  represented  Jesus 
Christ.  Next  to  him  were  twelve  Magistri,  representing  the 
twelve  Apostles.  After  them  came  seventy-two  Bishops,  corres- 
ponding with  the  seventy-two  disciples  of  Christ.  To  the  several 
Bishops  were  subject  the  Presbyters  and  Deacons.  All  these  be- 
longed to  the  class  of  the  Elect,  and  were  the  head  men  of  the 
sect.(')  The  members  of  the  community  were  divided  into  two 
classes,  the  Elect  or  Perfect,  and  the  Auditors,  who  were  also  called 
Catechumens.  The  Elect  were  subjected  to  a  severe  and  uncom- 
fortable rule  of  life,  and  consequently  were  held  in  very  high 
veneration.  They  were  of  two  descriptions,  the  haptized  and  the 
unhaptized.  The  baptized  could  never  change  their  condition ;  but 
the  unbaptized,  if  they  found  themselves  utterly  unable  to  en- 
dure the  rigorous  discipline  of  the  Elect,  might  descend  to  the 
rank  of  Auditors^  who  were  allowed  to  live  and  act  with  greater 
freedom.(*) 


Constitution  of  the  Minichccan    Church.  399 

(1)  On  the  constitution  of  the  Manichsean  church,  there  is  only  one  passage 
to  be  cited  from  Augustine^  (de  Hierts.  c.  46.  p.  13.):  Ipse  Manichajua  duode- 
cim  discipulos  habuit,  ad  instar  Apoatolici  numeri,  quern  numerum  Manicliail 
hodicque  custodiunt.  Nam  ex  Eleetis  suis  habent  duodecim,  quos  appi-lhint 
Magistrus  et  tertiuni  decimum  principem  ipsorum:  episcopos  auteui  sepiuaijinta 
duos,  qui  ordinantur  a  Magistris:  Et  preshyteros,  qui  ordinantur  ab  epi.scopis. 
Habent  etiam  episcopi  diaconos.  I  could  wish  Augusliue  had  described  wilh 
more  particularity  the  constitution  of  the  Manichaean  community,  had  named 
the  place  wiiere  the  head  of  the  sect  and  the  Magistri  resided,  and  had  informed 
us  what  were  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  several  orders  of  the  clergy,  [p.  897.] 
how  they  were  inducted  into  office,  «fcc.  But  I  suppose  that,  being  only  an 
Auditor,  he  did  not  himself  know  these  things,  as  they  pertained  to  the  sacred 
arcana  of  the  sect,  and  to  the  interior  discipline  of  the  Elect.  It  is  probable, 
that  the  head  of  the  sect  and  the  college  of  the  Magisiri  resided  in  some  city 
of  Persia;  for  the  sect  originated  in  Persia,  and  its  founder  was  a  Persian.  But 
in  the  times  of  Augustine,  the  severe  laws  of  the  emperors,  which  are  now  ex- 
tant in  the  Codex  Theodosianus,  were  in  force  against  the  Manichaeans;  and 
therefore,  undoubtedly,  they  concealed  the  residence  of  their  chief,  and  the  other 
things  from  which  the  internal  state  of  the  sect  might  be  known. — The  Mani- 
chaeans, then,  had  a  supreme  Pontiff;  though  by  what  title  he  was  designated, 
is  not  known ;  for  the  term  Princeps  used  by  Augustine,  was  not  probably  his 
true  title.  I  conjecture  that,  as  Manes  himself  assumed  tlie  appellation  of 
Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  same  appellation  was  transmitted  to  his  successors. 
With  the  Pontiff  was  associated  a  college  of  twelve  Magistri:  but  whether  they 
were  dispersed  in  various  places,  or  all  resided  near  the  Pontiff,  does  not  appear. 
The  PontifT,  I  suppose,  was  elected  and  consecrated  by  the  Magistri;  and  he, 
in  return,  appointed  and  consecrated  the  Magisiri.  In  what  way  the  Bishops 
were  created,  does  not  appear:  but  they  could  be  installed  only  by  the  Magisiri; 
and  afterwards  they  installed  the  Presbyters.  The  Bishops  seem  to  have  se- 
lected the  Deacons,  and  to  have  inducted  them  into  office.  Diverse  from  all 
these,  yet  doubtless  belonging  to  the  sacred  order,  were  the  Evangelists,  as  we 
may  call  them,  or  those  whose  office  it  was  to  extend  and  propagate  the  sect; 
but  what  title  the  Manichaeans  gave  to  them,  I  do  not  know.  They  were  the 
more  distinguished  among  the  Elect  for  talents,  ability,  and  zeal.  Says  Augus- 
tine, (loc.  cit.  p.  13.):  Mittuntur  etiam  ipsi,  qui  videntur  idonei  ad  hunc  errorem, 
vel  ubi  est,  sustentandum  et  augendum,  vel  ubi  non  est,  etiam  seminandiun. 
The  electing  and  commissioning  of  them,  undoubtedly  belonged  to  the  head  of 
the  sect. 

(2)  That  Manes  divided  the  members  of  his  community  into  two  classes, 
the  Elect  and  the  Auditors,  is  a  fact  well  known.  Says  Augustine,  (de  Haeres. 
c.  46.  p.  11.):  Electi  Manichaeorum  sanctius  vivunt  et  excellentius  Auditoribus 
suis.  Nam  his  duabus  professionibus,  hoc  est,  Electorum  et  Auditorum,  cccle- 
siam  suam  constare  voluerunt.  Some  suppose,  that  Manes  borrowed  this  classi- 
fication from  the  Pythagorean  school;  which  was  composed  of  the  Mathnnatici 
and  the  Acusmatici  (dxouo-^artjtot),  the  former  corresponding  with  the  Elect,  and 
the  latter  with  the  Auditors.  I  am  persuaded  that  this  Persian,  who  was  doubU 


400  Century  III. — Section  55, 

less  ignorant  of  Pythagoras,  followed  in  this  matter  his  instrueters,  the  MagL 
Eubulus,  in  his  history  of  Mithra,  (apud  Porphyrium  de  abstinentia  a  carnibus, 
L.  iv.  5  16.  p.  165.)  besides  others,  testifies  that  the  Magi  were  distributed  into 
[p.  898.]  three  chisses:  Primi  et  doctissimi  neque  edebant  animalia,  neque  neca- 
bant:  These  were  very  similar  to  the  Elect  among  the  Maniehaeans.  Seeundi 
ordinis  Magi  animantes  interficiebant  quidem,  sed  nullas  cicures :  That  is,  they 
slew  the  noxious  animals,  or  such  as  were  injurious  to  mankind,  but  spared  the 
useful  animals.  Nor  was  it  wholly  unlawful  for  the  Manichaean  Auditors  to 
slay  those  animals  which  endanger  the  lives  of  men,  such  as  serpents,  field-mice, 
and  scorpions:  these,  however,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Augustine,  (de 
moribus  Manichaeor.  L.  ii.  c.  18.  tom.  i.  p.  550.)  they  supposed  not  to  be  real 
animals,  but  to  originate  from  the  dead  bodies  of  men.  Tertii  generis  Manichcci 
(Magi?)  quaedam  quidem  animalia  edebant,  sed  non  omnia.  There  are  several 
things  which  go  to  show,  that  the  Manichaean  Auditors  were  also  forbidden  to 
eat  certain  animals. 

The  Elect,  as  Theodoret  testifies,  (Haeret.  Fabul.  L.  i.  c.  26.)  were  likewise 
called  TtKuoh  the  Perfect;  because  they  appeared  to  obey  the  whole  of  the  law 
which  was  considered  ics  enjoined  by  Christ.  And,  althougli  they  were  not  all 
priests,  yet  they  were  all  compared  to  the  Jewish  priests,  and  were  generally 
called  priests,  and  the  priestly  order.  Thus  Faustiis,  (L.  xxx.  c.  1.  p.  316.): 
Nos  quidem  solum  in  plebe  sacerdotale  hominum  genus  censemus  a  carnibus 
abstinere  debere.  Perhaps  Faustus  likewise  used  the  word  Fidelium;  for  Au- 
gustine often  calls  them  fideles  :  e.  g.  (de  morib.  ecclesiae  cathol.  L.  i.  c.  35. 
p.  632.):  Nolite  dicere  catechumenis  uti  licere  conjugibus,  jidelihus  autem  non 
licere:  catechumenis  licere  habere  pecuniam,7it/<^ZiJws  autem  non  licere. —  Tyrho, 
(in  the  Acta  Archelai,  \  9.  p.  16.)  is  the  first  that  gives  the  appellation  Catechu- 
mens to  the  Auditors.  After  him,  Epiphanius  several  times  designates  them  by 
this  appellation.  But  some  learned  men  disapprove  the  term :  they  think  that 
the  term  Catechumens,  which  was  appropriate  to  Catholic  Christians,  is  indis- 
creetly applied  to  a  class  of  persons  very  different  from  Catechumens.  But 
Tyrho,  and  those  who  followed  him,  committed  no  mistake.  For  Augustine, 
once  himself  an  Auditor,  and  therefore  a  very  competent  witness,  informs  us 
that  the  title  of  Catechwnens  was  applied,  even  among  the  Maniehaeans,  to  the 
Auditors.  I  have  just  cited  from  him  a  passage  which  proves  it.  But  I  will 
add  one  still  clearer  and  more  irrefragable,  (contra  litteras  Petiliani,  L.  iii.  c.  17. 
p.  208,  209.):  Nescit  (Petilianus,)  non  illic,  (among  Maniehaeans,)  ita  appelhui 
Catechumenos,  tanquam  eis  baptismus  quandoque  debeatur,  (for  Petilian  had 
supposed,  that  the  Manichaean  Catechumens,  like  those  of  other  Christians, 
were  to  be  baptized,)  sed  eos  hoc  vocari,  qui  etiam  Auditores  vocantur,  quod  vi- 
delicet tanquam  meliora  et  majora  praecepta  observare  non  possint,  quae  obser- 
vantur  ab  eis,  quos  Electorum  nomine  discernendos  et  honorandos  putant. — 
They  were  also  called  Seculars;  because  they  might  engage  in  secular  business. 
[p.  899.]  Faustus,  (L.  xvi.  c.  6.  p.  204.):  Judaci  Christo  credere  non  poterant, 
indiflferentiam  docenti  ciborum,  et  a  suis  quidem  discipulis  (the  Elect,)  omnia 
penitus  removenti,  ssecularibus  vero  (to  the  Auditors,)  vulgo  concedenti  omnia 
quae  possent  edi. 


Constitution  of  the  Manichccan   Church.  401 

The  number  of  the  Elect  was  smcall.  It  would  ;\ppo:ir  from  tlio  Ada  Arche- 
lai^  Q  10.  p.  19.)  that  DIanes  was  attended  by  only  seven:  Praecipit  Eloctis  suis 
8olis,  qui  non  sunt  amplius,  quam  septem  numcro.  But  I  must  coiilesH,  this  tes- 
timony  appears  to  me  doubtful.  For  in  the  same  Acla^  a  little  after,  (J  12.  p.  23.) 
Manes  is  said  to  have  arrived,  adducens  sccum  juvenes  ct  virgiucs  electos  ad 
viginti  duo  simul.  Besides,  it  is  beyond  all  controversy  that  Manes,  after  the 
exanipio  of  Christ,  had  twelve  disciples  of  the  highest  order,  or  twelve  Apostles- 
and  these  were  undoubtedly  of  the  class  of  the  Elect.  I  suspect  that  the  seven 
whom  Ty?-bo  calls  Elect,  were  Magistri;  and  that  Manes,  iii  that  time,  could 
find  no  more  of  the  Elect  worthy  of  being  thus  promoted.  The  smallness  of 
the  number  of  the  Elect  will  not  appear  strange,  to  one  who  considers  what  we 
have  frequently  shown,  that  the  Elect  were  obliged  to  lead  a  very  uncomfortable 
and  cheerless  life.  For  as  they  must  live  in  perfect  inactivity,  and  must  so  re- 
frain from  all  labor  and  business  as  not  even  to  pull  up  an  herb  or  pluck  an 
apple,  without  sinning;  this  very  inactivity  was  more  painful  and  disngreoable 
than  the  most  busy  and  active  life.  They  were  prohibited  from  everything  that 
can  delight  the  senses,  exhilarate  the  mind,  or  give  pleasure  to  the  body,  except 
only  music.  In  part,  these  disagreeables  were  relieved  by  the  high  veneration 
in  which  they  were  held.  For  they  were  addressed,  as  Deities  are,  on  bended 
knees.  Thus  Augustine,  (Epist.  ccxxxvii.  ad  Deuterium,  torn.  ii.  p.  643.) :  Au- 
ditores  qui  appellantur  apud  eos  et  carnibes  vescuntur,  et  agros  colunt,  et,  si 
voluerint,  uxores  habent,  quorum  nihil  faciunt  qui  vocantur  Electi.  Scd  ipsi 
Auditores  ante  Electos  genua  figunt,  ut  eis  manus  supplicibus  imponantur,  non 
a  soils  presbyteris,  vel  episcopis  aut  diaconibus  eorum,  sed  a  quibuslibet  Electis. 
Therefore,  although  the  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons,  were  higher  in  rank 
or  dignity,  yet  all  the  Elect  were  supposed  to  possess  equal  sanctity,  and  the 
power  of  conferring  celestial  gifts  on  the  Auditors.  As  they  were  entirely 
penniless,  and  could  neither  possess  anything  nor  supply  their  wants  by  labor, 
it  was  necessary  that  the  Auditors  should  furnish  them  with  salads,  potherbs, 
fruits,  melons,  bread,  &c.  for  their  sustenance;  and  whoever  neglected  this  duty, 
was  deemed  guilty  of  atrocious  sin,  and  deserving  the  flames  of  hell.  And 
hence  the  Auditors  were  always  ready  and  willing  to  present  to  the  Elect  what- 
ever they  needed ;  and  frequently  they  brought  to  them  more  than  they  wanted. 
Says  Tyrho,  (in  the  Acta  Archelai,  p.  16.):  Si  quid  optimum  est  in  escis  (those, 
namely,  which  the  Elect  might  lawfully  eat,)  offerunt  illud  Electis.  But  this 
very  liberality  of  the  Auditors  frequently  became  onerous  to  the  Elect :  for, 
whatever  the  Auditors  presented  to  them,  was  considered  as  consecrated,  [p.  900.] 
And  therefore  could  neither  be  eaten  by  any  other  persons,  nor  be  thrown  away. 
And  hence  the  Elect  had  to  load  their  stomachs  immoderately,  whenever  a  large 
quantity  of  food  was  offered  them ;  or  the  boys  whom  they  had  under  instruc- 
tion, were  compelled  to  eat  what  their  masters  were  unable  to  consume.  Au. 
gustine,  (de  moribus  eccles.  et  Manichaeor.  L.  ii.  c.  16.  p.  527.):  Quae  vobis 
quasi  purganda  afferuntur,  (Manes  supposed  some  portion  of  the  divine  and 
celestial  substance  was  combined  with  all  natural  objects ;  and  that  the  conti- 
nence, the  chastity,  and  the  sanctity  of  the  Elect,  caused  all  that  was  celestial 
and  divine  in  the  things  they  ate,  to  be  at  once  separated  from  sordid  matter, 
VOL.  ir.  27 


402  Century  Ill—Section  55. 

and  so  to  return  to  tlie  world  of  light.  Therefore  Augustine  says:)  Quod  ea, 
qua3  vobis  quasi  purg-anda  atferuntur  ad  epulas,  nefas  putatis,  si  quis  alius,  prai- 
ter  Electos,  ad  cibandiim  tetiorerit,  quantae  turpitudinis  et  aliquando  sceleria 
plenum  est  ?  Si  quidem  sacpe  tam  multa  dantur,  ut  consumi  facile  a  paueis  non 
possint.  Et  quoniam  sacrilegium  putatur,  vel  aliis  dare  quod  redundat,  vel 
certe  abjieere,  in  magnas  contrudimini  cruditates,  totum  quod  datum  est  quasi 
purg;ire  cupiontes.  Jam  vero  distenti  et  prope  crepantes,  eos,  qui  sub  vestra 
disciplina  sunt,  pueros  ad  devorandum  reliqua  crudeli  dominatione  compellitis: 
ita,  ut  euidam  sit  Romae  objectum,  quod  miseros  parvulos  cogendo  ad  vescendum 
tali  superstitione  necaverit.  Quod  non  crederem,  nisi  scirem.  quantum  ncfaa 
esse  arbitremini,  vel  aliis  haec  dare,  qui  Electi  non  sunt,  vel  eerta  projicienda 
curare.  Unde  ilia  vescendi  necessitas  restat,  quae  ad  turpissimam  cruditatem 
paene  quotidie,  aliquando  tamen  potest  et  usque  ad  homicidium  pervenire.  This 
is  a  memorable  passage  on  several  accounts,  and  particularly  as  teaching  us, 
what  we  nowhere  else  Jearn,  that  the  Elect  occupied  themselves  to  some  extent 
in  teaching  and  training  up  boys.  These  boys,  undoubtedly,  were  devoted  by 
their  parents  to  the  mode  of  life  prescribed  to  the  Elect.  For  the  sanctity  of  the 
Elect  being  held  in  the  highest  estimation,  and  their  souls  being  supposed  to  go 
directly  to  the  celestial  world  on  leaving  the  body,  it  was  a  common  thing  for 
parents,  influenced  by  affection  and  superstition,  to  commit  their  children  to  the 
training  of  ,the  Electa  so  that  they  might  become  habituated  to  their  harsh  and 
cheerless  mode  of  life,  and  be  imbued  with  sound  religious  knowledge.  And  if 
any  one  ask,  how  we  know  that  these  boys  were  consecrated  to  tlie  life  of  the 
Elect ;  I  answer,  we  may  infer  it  from  the  nature  of  the  case.  These  boys  were 
compelled  to  eat  the  surplus  food  of  the  Elect:  but  no  one  of  the  profane  or 
the  Auditors  might  touch  the  food  that  had  been  presented  to  the  Elect:  there- 
fore these  boys  must  have  been  of  the  class  of  the  Electa  or  were  destined  to 
belong  to  that  order.  The  instruction  and  education  of  boys  not  aspiring  to 
the  highest  degree  of  sanctity,  was  deemed  beneath  the  dignity  of  such  very 
great  men,  and  was  therefore  intrusted  to  the  Auditors. — Before  the  Elect  ate 
the  bread  presented  to  them,  (and,  I  suppose,  it  was  the  same  if  other  food  was 
offered  them,)  they  called  both  God  and  men  to  witness,  that  they  had  no  con- 
cern with  the  sins  committed  in  the  production  of  that  bread.  For  the  Mani- 
[p.  901.]  chaeans  believed,  that  those  who  till  the  ground,  reap  the  corn,  grind 
it,  or  bake  the  bread,  commit  a  sin  not  unlike  homicide ;  because,  as  they  sup- 
posed, this  whole  material  universe  is  full  of  celestial  and  animated  matter. 
The  Elect  also  added  prayers  for  the  Auditors  who  presented  the  bread,  that 
God  would  pardon  the  sin  committed  in  making  the  bread.  This  custom  is 
mentioned  by  Cyrill  of  Jerusalem,  (Cateches.  vi.  \  32.  p.  108.  edit.  Bened.)  But 
he  speaks  in  too  invidious  a  manner:  for  he  tells  us,  the  Elect  imprecated  curses 
instead  of  blessings,  on  the  Auditors  who  presented  to  them  the  bread ;  nay 
that  they  blasphemed  God  himself.  Now  this  is  in  itself  incredible,  and  it  is  at 
variance  with  the  fundamental  precepts  of  the  Manichaean  religion.  I  choose, 
therefore,  to  explain  the  subject  by  the  language  of  Tyrho,  (in  the  Acta  Arche- 
lai,  \  9.  p.  16.)  with  whom  Epiphanius  and  Titus  of  Bostra  agree:  Cum  volue- 
rint  manducare  panem,  orant  primo,  ista  dicentes  ad  panem:  Neque  ego  te 


Constitution  of  the  Manichccan   Church.  403 

messui,  neqiie  molui,  noque  tribulavi,  noc  in  clibanuin  te  niisi,  alius  tc  fecit  ct 
detulit  te  mihi,  ego  innocenter  te  inanduco.  Et  cum  intra  setnetipsum  haec 
dixerit,  respondit  ad  eum,  qui  ei  detulit:  Onivi  pro  te,  et  ille  discedit  ita.  Tiieso 
things  were  superstitious;  but  they  will  be  readily  credited,  by  one  acquainted 
with  the  Manichaean  system.  After  eating,  the  Elect  again  prayed;  and  then 
anointed  their  head  with  consecrated  oil,  for  the  purpose,  1  suppo^^e,  of  cxpellinfr 
or  enervating  the  virus  of  the  evil  matter  combined  with  the  celestial  in  the 
food.  Says  Tijvbo,  (loc.  cit,  p.  19.):  Praecipit  autem  (Manes)  Electis  suis  so- 
lis,  ut  cum  desinerint  manducantes,  orarent,  et  mitterent  oleum  super  caput  ex- 
orcidiatum,  invocatis  nominibus  plurimis  (either  of  iEons,  the  good  spirits,  or  of 
the  bad  ones,)  ad  confirmationem  fidei  hujus.  But  all  this  pertained  to  the 
arcane  discipline:  hence,  Tyrho  adds:  Nomina  tamcn  mihi  non  manifcstavit, 
{Tyrho  being  only  an  Auditor^)  soli  enim  Electi  his  utuntur  nominibus. 

The  AiuUtors  had  little  that  was  peculiar  in  their  mode  of  living.  Says  Au' 
gustine,  (contra  Faust.  L.  xx.  c.  23.  p.  248.):  Cum  Auditorcs  vestri  ct  uxores 
habeant,  et  filios,  quamvis  inviti,  suscipiant,  eisque  patrimonia  congerant  vel 
custodiant,  carne  vescantur,  vinum  bibant,  lavent,  metant,  vindemient,  negoti- 
entur,  honores  publicos  administrent,  vobiscum  tamen  eos,  non  cum  gentibus, 
computatis.  But  this  liberty  was  circumscribed  by  some  limitations ;  neither 
was  everything  lawful  for  Manichaean  Auditors,  which  was  permitted  by  other 
Christians. — First :  Although  they  might  possess  houses  and  lands,  which  they 
received  by  inheritance  or  by  gift;  yet,  to  build  houses,  or  to  labor  for  the  ac- 
quisition or  increase  of  property,  was  accounted  a  great  iniquity.  This  has 
been  already  shown.  The  poorer  a  person  was,  and  the  less  he  cared  about 
wealth,  the  more  happy  was  he  considered. — Secondly:  It  was  lawful  for  them 
to  eat  the  flesh  of  animals,  though  doubtless,  with  moderation:  but  to  kill  or 
slaughter  animals,  was  criminal.  The  reason  has  been  already  stated. — [p.  902.] 
Thirdly :  They  were  not  forbidden  to  marry :  but  they  were  instructed  by  their 
teachers,  to  avoid  as  far  as  possible  the  begetting  of  children.  Nearly  all  wri- 
ters on  their  affairs,  tax  them  with  this.  Tlius  Titus  of  Bostra,  EpiphaniuSy 
Theodoret,  and  others  ;  but  no  one  more  frequently,  or  more  expressly  and  ve- 
hemently, than  Augustine.  T  will  cite  some  of  his  most  noticeable  passages ; 
and  they  will  show  us,  what  precepts  they  gave  for  avoiding  the  procreation  of 
children.  The  first  is,  (de  Haeres.  c.  46.  p.  12,  13.)  :  Monent  Auditores  suos, 
si  utuntur  conjugibus,  conceptum  tamen  generationemque  devitent,  ne  divina 
substantia  vinculis  carneis  ligetur  in  prole.  Another  is,  (contra  Faustum,  L. 
XXX.  c.  6.  p.  318.)  :  Vos  eum  praecipue  concubitum  detestamini,  qui  solus  hones- 
tus  et  conjugalis  est,  et  quern  matrimoniales  quoque  tabulae  prac  se  gerunt,  li- 
berorum  procreandorum  caussa :  unde  vere  non  tam  concumbere,  quam  nubere 
prohibetis.  Concumbitur  enim  etiam  caussa  libidinum,  nubitur  autem  non  nisi  fili- 
orum.  A  third  passage  is,  (contra  Faust.  L.  xxii.  c.  30.  p.  270.)  :  Perversa  lex 
Manichaeorum,  ne  Deus  eorum,  quem  ligatum  in  omnibus  seminibus  plangunt 
(that  is,  souls,  those  particles  of  the  divine  light  or  nature,)  in  conceptu  feniinae 
arctius  colligetur,  prolem  ante  omnia  devitari  a  concumbentibus  jubet,  ut  Deus 
eorum  turpi  lapsu  potius  effundatur,  quam  crudeli  nexu  vinciatur.  There  is  a 
passage  still  more  full  and  explicit,  (de  moribus  Manichacor.  L.  ii.  c.  18.  p.  bbl.): 


404  Century  Ill.—Section  56. 

Noniie  vos  estis,  (Manichaei,)  qui  filios  gignere,  eo  quod  animae  ligentur  in 
carne,  gravius  putatis  esse  pcccatum,  quam  ipsum  concubitum  ?  Nonne  vos  es- 
tis, qui  nos  (Auditores)  solebatis  nionere,  ut,  quantum  fieri  posset,  observarenius 
tempus,  quo  ad  eonceptuni  mulier  post  genitalium  viscerum  purgationeni  apta 
esset;  eoque  tempore  a  eoncubitu  temperaremus,  ne  carni  anima  implicaretur  ? 
Ex  quo  illud  sequitur,  ut  non  liberorum  procreandorum  causs^,  sed  satiandae 
libidinis  habere  conjugem  censeatis.  Whatever  some  learned  men,  the  advocates 
of  the  Manichaeans,  may  say  on  this  subject,  1  can  never  persuade  myself  that 
Augustine  has  fabriatcd  all  these  charges  unjustly  ;  and  especially,  as  he  is  sup- 
ported by  other  writers,  and  by  the  primary  doctrines  of  the  sect.  Yet  Augus- 
tine himself  acknowledges,  that  the  procreation  of  children  was  tolerated  among 
the  Manichaeans,  and  that  no  penalties  were  inflicted  on  the  fathers  and  mo- 
thers :  but  still  he  maintains,  that  it  was  necessity  that  directed  this  lenity,  and 
that  their  doctrines  condemned  it.  He  says,  (contra  Faust.  L.  xxx.  c.6.  p.  318.) : 
Nee  ideo  vos  dicatis  prohibere  {legitimate  marriage;  which  Augustine  had 
charged  upon  them,)  quia  multos  vestros  Auditores  in  hoc  (in  avoiding  the  pro- 
creation of  children,)  obedire  nolentes  vel  non  valentes  salva  amicitia  toleratis. 
Illud  enim  habetis  in  doctrina  vestri  erroris,  hoc  in  necessitate  socictatis. — > 
Fourthly :  The  Auditors  were  not  required  to  observe  so  many  fasts  and  vigils 
as  the  Elect :  only  on  Sundays  or  Lord's  Days,  all  food  and  drink  were  strictly 
forbidden,  to  them  as  well  as  to  the  Elect.  I  have  already  cited  a  passage  from 
[p.  903.]  Augustine  on  this  subject :  and  I  will  now  add  another,  which  has  not 
been  noticed,  (Epistle  xxxv.  c.  12.  torn.  ii.  p.  60.)  From  this  we  learn,  first, 
the  severity  of  this  fast :  Toto  (enim)  die  Dominico  usque  ad  medium  noctis, 
vel  etiam  usque  ad  diluculum,  reficere  corpora  non  curabant :  and  then  also  the 
sanctity  of  this  fost:  Impiissimi  Manichaei  jejunia  diei  Uominicae  non  aliqua 
necessitate  occurrente  peragere,  sed  quasi  sacra  solennitate  statuta  dogmatizare 
coeperunt,  et  innotuerunt  populis  Christianis. — None  of  the  ancients  has  ac- 
quainted us  with  any  other  rules  obligatory  on  the  Auditors,  except  those  of 
kneeling  before  the  Elect,  feeding  them,  and  paying  them  reverence. 

§  LVI.  The  Sect  of  the  Hieracites.  The  Manichaeans  were 
early  divided  into  several  sects  :  which  is  bj  no  means  strange, 
considering  how  many  of  their  doctrines  were  vaguely  stated. 
Among  these  sects,  many  esteem  that  to  be  one,  which  was  suc- 
cessfully founded  in  Egypt  by  Hierax  or  Hieracas,  an  Egyptian 
of  Leonto,  a  learned  man  and  a  great  writer,  near  the  close  of 
the  century.  But  this  opinion  is  not  supported  by  competent 
testimony,  nor  by  valid  arguments.  For  although  Hierax, 
equally  with  Manes,  opposed  marriages,  and  enjoined  on  his  fol- 
lowers a  severe  code  of  morals,  and  perhaps  also  believed  that 
the  source  of  all  evil  propensities  and  sins  is  to  be  found  in  mat 
ter  or  the  body ;  yet  in  other  respects  he  differed  widely  from 
Manes :  nor  is  there  any  testimony  that  he  approved  the  funda- 


i 


The  Sect  of  the  Ilieracites.  405 

mental  principles  which  arc  the  basis  of  the   Manichacan  re- 
ligion. {') 

(1)  Hierax^  or  as  some  call  him  Hieracas,  was  not  the  least  amoiifr  those 
who,  in  this  century,  disquieted  the  church  with  new  opinions.  For,  near  tho 
close  of  the  century,  he  founded  a  very  considerable  sect  in  Ejrypt,  which  con- 
tinued after  his  death  ;  yet,  as  Epiplianius  expressly  states,  (^  3.  p.  714.)  it  gra- 
dually receded,  as  is  common,  from  the  severity  prescribed  by  the  founder. 
Nearly  all  we  know,  at  this  day,  respecting  the  man  or  his  opinions,  is  derived 
from  Epiphanius ;  whose  Haercsis  LX  VII.  is  that  of  the  Ilieracifes.  From 
him,  Aiigusiitte  and  the  other  historians  of  the  sects,  derive  all  that  they  recount 
to  us  respecting  the  Ilieracites.  What  we  can  learn  from  others,  adds  very  lit- 
tle to  our  knowledge,  and  perhaps  does  not  all  relate  to  this  Ilierax.  The  man 
was  a  native  Egyptian  of  the  town  of  Leonto :  he  was  well  versed  in  the  Gre- 
cian sciences,  especially  in  medicine,  and  was  well  acquainted  with  the  polite 
learning  and  literature  of  both  the  Greeks  aud  the  Egyptians:  and  his  life  and 
habits,  as  Epiphanius,  his  adversary,  testifies,  (^  1.  p.  710.)  v,'a»  plane  [p.  904.1 
adniirabilis :  dviip  i^uttk^ktos  tS  dricyiTu.  The  sanctity  of  his  life  so  captivated 
the  Egyptian  Monks,  that  many  of  them  joined  his  sect.  By  occupation,  he  was 
a  book  maker ;  that  is,  he  wrote  elegantly  in  both  the  Grecian  and  the  Egyptian 
characters,  and  obtained  his  living  by  transcribing  books.  Says  Epiphanius^ 
(loc.  cit.  ^  3.  p.  712.)  :  'Ewf  tJij  ^/^ifas,  «?  irtKivra  inaWiypapti.  KaWiypa^oi  yap  ^r. 
Ad  obitum  usque  libros  descripsit ;  calligraphus  enim  sen  librarius  erat.  He 
lived  to  a  great  age,  and  was  vigorous  when  over  ninety  years  old.  Jle  wrote 
many  books,  especially  commentaries  on  the  books  of  the  Bible,  and  in  parti- 
cular a  History  of  the  Creation  of  the  World,  or  of  the  si.\  day's  work  of  God- 
He  also  composed  and  published  some  hymns. 

Venerable  as  he  was  for  his  mode  of  life,  his  temperance,  his  chastity,  and 
his  piety,  he  nevertheless  deviated  in  many  things  from  other  christians,  as 
Epiphanius  expressly  states.  Yet  Epiphanius  mentions  and  refutes  only  a  few 
of  his  opinions;  and  he  is  wholly  silent  as  to  the  sources  from  which  those 
very  base  doctrines,  as  he  terms  them,  flowed.  Yet  that  the  errors  assailed  by 
Epiphanius,  were  only  consequences  from  other  and  more  general  notions  or 
principles,  is  manifest.  It  is  very  embarrassing,  that  the  early  writers  on  the 
affairs  of  christians,  state  only  some  portion  of  the  doctrines  advanced  by  the  re- 
ligious innovaters ;  and  that  they  give  no  account  of  the  coherency  of  those 
doctrines,  and  of  the  sources  from  which  they  originated.  And  hence  the  true 
import  of  the  errors  mentioned,  cannot  be  accurately  determined  or  estimated ; 
and  learned  men  may,  with  no  little  plausibility,  either  censure  or  excuse  the 
authors  of  those  errors.  And  hence  the  writers  who  treat  of  the  Ilieracites  are, 
one  and  all,  sterile  and  dry.  IMost  of  them  merely  state,  that  Ilierax  condemn- 
ed marriages,  and  denied  the  resurrection  of  our  bodies.  And  as  Manes  also 
held  these  errors,  some  confidentially  affirm,  that  Ilierax  was  one  of  the  early 
disciples  of  Manes.  But  I  apprehend,  something  more  may  be  said,  and  that 
the  alledged  Manichaeism  of  the  Hieracites  may  be  completely  disproved. 

I.  Those  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  which  Christians  regarded 


406  Century  Ill.—Section  5G. 

divine,  Hierax  also  received;  and  on  some  of  tticm  he  wrote  expositions.  This 
is  expressly  stated  by  iiis  adversary,  Epiphanius ;  who  adds,  that  he  was  well 
acquainted  with  both  Testaments.  But  his  regard  for  the  sacred  books  was 
tarnished  by  two  errors.  For,  Jirst,  in  addition  to  the  sacred  volume  which  all 
Christians  revere,  he  appears  to  have  regarded  some  other  books  also  as  divine, 
and  books  written  by  fallible  men.  For  this  we  have  the  testimony  of  Epi- 
phanius, a  competent  \Aitness  in  the  case.  He  not  only  tells  us  that  Hierax,  in 
support  of  his  error  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit,  (of  which  we  shall  speak  here- 
after.) placed  special  reliance  on  a  passage  from  a  book  called  the  Ascension  of 
[p.  905.]  Isaiah;  but  also  quotes  the  passnge  of  that  book,  (§  3.  p.  712.)  which 
is  evidence,  among  other  facts,  that  Epiphanius  actually  saw  and  read  the 
books  of  Hierax.  Of  this  book,  the  Ascension  of  Isaiah,  Jo.  Alb.  Fahricius 
treats,  (in  his  Codex  Pseudepigraphus  Vet.  Test.  tom.  I.  p.  1086,  &c.) — Se- 
condly, abandoning  the  literal  sense  of  the  holy  scriptures,  and  following  the 
example  of  Origcn,  Hierax  converted  the  historical  narrations  into  moral  fables 
and  allegories.  See  Epiphanius,  (loc.  cit.  \  3.  p.  712.)  This  method  of  inter- 
preting or  rather  perverting  the  sacred  books,  doubtless  afforded  him  a  very 
convenient  refuge  against  all  the  texts  and  arguments  from  the  scriptures,  in 
opposition  to  his  views :  and  perhaps  also,  it  gave  rise  to  some  of  his  errors. 
He  may  have  been  a  disciple  of  Origen. — As  Hierax  held  the  Old  Testament 
to  be  equally  inspired  with  the  New,  it  is  evident  that  he  had  nothing  in  com- 
mon with  Manes ;\vho  maintained  that  the  entire  Old  Testament  was  the  work 
of  the  Prince  of  darkness,  and  Moses  a  legate  of  the  evil  demon  ;  while  Hierax 
venerated  Moses  as  a  prophet  of  the  most  high  God,  according  to  Epiphanius, 
(loe.  cit.  \  1.  p.  710.)  Manes  also  taught  that  the  New  Testament  is  either  false- 
ly ascribed  to  the  Apostles  of  Jesus  Christ,  or  is  entirely  corrupted  and  vitiat- 
ed. But  here  some  learned  men  bring  forward  Alhanasius,  who  wrote,  they 
say,  (in  his  Sermo  contra  omnes  hsereses,  \.  9.  0pp.  tom.  ii.  p.  233.  Edit.  Bened.) 
that  Hierax,  equally  with  Manes,  discarded  the  Old  Testament.  For,  disput- 
ing with  Hierax  respecting  marriage,  he  introduces  Hierax  as  saying:  'AXXa  n 
>£>«/? i  '*Ti  ov  J'i^ofAai  T«v  TtaXaiav  (J'la^Hityiv).  Quid  vero  dicis?  Vetus  testamen- 
tum  non  admitto.  But  these  learned  men  here  err,  through  ignorance  of  the 
system  of  Hierax.  The  sense  of  the  passage  is ;  I  do  not  admit  the  arguments 
or  dicta  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  this  debate  about  marriage.  Athanasius  had 
proved  the  divine  origin  of  marriage  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  particularly 
from  the  history  of  Adam  and  Eve.  But  Hierax  conceded,  as  we  shall  soon 
learn,  that  under  the  Old  Testament,  marriage  was  allowed  to  all ;  but  he  con- 
tended, that  Jesus  Christ,  the  giver  of  a  more  perfect  law,  had  abolished  this 
liberty  of  marriage.  He  therefore  replied  to  his  antagonist :  Your  arguments 
from  the  Old  Testament,  in  this  matter,  prove  nothing.  But  there  are  other 
proofs,  besides  those  already  stated,  from  wliich  it  appears  that  Hierax  detract- 
ed nothing  from  the  divinity  of  the  Old  Testament.  He  wrote  expositions  of 
some  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  particular,  a  very  copious  ex- 
planation of  the  history  of  the  creation,  or  of  the  six  day's  work.  And  who  will 
believe,  that  a  man  would  voluntarily  expend  so  much  labor  in  explaining  a 
book  which  he  despised  and  rejected '?    Moreover  he  taught,  that  Melchizedek 


The  Jllerac'ites.  407 

wa«  the  Holy  Spirit.     lie  therefore  did  not  deny  the  divine  inspiration  of  tiiat 
book  of  Moses  which  contains  the  history  of  Melchizedc'lv. 

II.  Respecting  God,  and  the  three  persons  in  one  God,  IHcrax  was  sound 
and  orthodox ;  as  Epiphaniiis  clearly  teaciies,  Q  2.  p.  1-21.)  :  l)c  Patre,  [p.  yutJ.] 
Filio  et  Spiritu  sancto  non  eadem,  quaj  Origenes,  sentit :  quin  potius  et  u  Patre 
Filiiini  revere  genitiiin,  et  Spiritiiin  sanctum  credit  a  Patre  procedere. — IJut 
liere  again  some  learned  men  think  to  detract  from  his  fame.  For  they  find, 
(npnd  Epiphayiium,  Uteres.  l.\i.\.  Arianor.  §  7.  p.  733:  and,  apud  Alhanasiurn  de 
duabus  Synodis,  5  15,  Opp.  torn,  i.  P.  ii.  p.  728  :  and,  apud  Hilariinn  de  Trinitate 
L.  vi.  §  5.  Opp.  p.  881.)  an  Epistle  o^  Arms  to  Alexander  the  bishop  of  Alexan- 
dria, in  which  he  says  that  Hierax  maintained,  that  the  Son  of  God  is,  as  it  were, 
lucernam  e  lucerna:  kv^vov  d-xd  \6;^vov.  aut  lampadem  in  duas  partes  divisani : 
wf  \afx7rai'a  tts  iTyo.  And  he  adds,  that  this  idea  of  the  generation  of  Christ  was 
publicly  refuted  and  condemned  by  Alexander.  And  hence  these  learned  men 
do  not  hesitate,  to  place  Hierax  among  those  who  debased  the  doctrine  of  the 
eternal  generation  of  the  Son  from  the  Father,  by  unsuitable  and  improper 
comparisons.  But,  as  no  other  one  of  the  ancients  has  accused  Hierax  of  any 
error,  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  God;  and,  on  the 
contrary,  as  Epiplianius  declares  his  opinions  concerning  God  to  have  been 
sound;  it  appears  to  me  doubtful,  whether  it  was  our  Hierax,  or  another  of  the 
same  name,  that  believed  as  Arius  states,  respecting  the  generation  of  the  Son 
of  God.  The  name  Hierax  or  Hieracas  was  very  common  in  Egypt,  as  might 
be  shown  from  A//ianasius  and  others;  and  therefore,  it  might  be,  that  some 
presbyter  at  Alexandria  bearing  this  name,  used  the  above  comparison. 

III.  However  this  may  be,  it  appears,  that  Hierax  deviated  somewhat  from 
the  common  opinions  of  Christians  respecting  the  Holy  Spirit.  Epiphanius, 
(loc.  cit.  \  3.  p.  711,)  says,  that  Hierax,  de  Spiritu  sancto  fusissimam  disputatio- 
nem  instituere,  multasque  nugas  proferre  :  toXXu  ipwa^wv  Tttpi  toZ  ayicv  KviujuaTos. 
From  this  it  may  be  inferred  that  he  erred  in  more  than  one  respect,  in  regard 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  yet  Epiphaniiis,  (both  here,  and  Hajres. 
Iv.  Melchisedecianor.  ^  5.  p.  472.)  mentions  only  one  of  his  false  notions  ;  name- 
ly, that  Melcliizedek  the  king  of  Salem,  who  blessed  Abraham,  was  the  Holy 
Spirit.  This  opinion  Hierax  proved,  or  rather,  stupidly  attempted  to  prove, 
from  Rom.  viii.  26.  Hebr.  vii.  3.  and  from  the  Ai^cension  of  Isaiah.  It  was  easy 
for  Epiplianius  to  refute  these  arguments:  and  yet  the  chief  proof  he  employs, 
in  regard  to  both  passages,  appears  to  me  not  entirely  unexceptionable.  If,  says 
he,  Melchizedek  was  the  Holy  Spirit,  then  the  Holy  Spirit  undoubtedly  assum- 
ed human  nature;  for  Melchizedek  was  a  man.  But  how  absurd  is  such  a  sup- 
position :  for  where  was  the  mother  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  It  is  therefore  false, 
that  Melchizedek  was  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  reasoning  in  this  manner,  Epiplia- 
nius forgets  what  he  had  before  told  us,  that  Hierax,  after  the  examjile  of  Ori- 
gen,  disregarding  the  literal  sense,  changed  the  sacred  history  into  an  allegory. 
Undoubtedly,  therefore,  he  maintained  that  the  history  of  Melchizedek,  [p.  907.] 
is  not  an  account  of  actual  occurrences,  but  only  a  sort  of  j)ieture  (»f  liie  bless- 
ings  with  which  the  Holy  Spirit  enriches  men  ;  and  that  Abraham  rej)resents  all 
saints  and  devout  persons. 


408  Century  III.— Section  56. 

IV.  The  office  of  Christ,  he  placed  especially  in  the  promulgation  of  a  new 
law,  more  strict  and  more  perfect  than  that  of  Moses.  This,  perhaps,  was  the 
greatest  of  all  his  errors.  Eyiphanius,  (loc.  cit.  ^^  1.  p.  710.)  clearly  shows  us, 
that  he  so  thought;  as  we  shall  soon  demonstrate.  Nor  will  it  be  unreasonable 
to  suppose,  especially  if  we  consider  his  doctrine  respecting  the  siilvation  of  in- 
fants, which  will  soon  be  brought  forward,  that  he  wholly  denied  the  expi.-itio-n 
of  our  sins  by  the  death  and  obedience  of  the  Saviour;  and  tluit  he  made  the 
endeavors  of  men  to  repress  the  evil  instincts  of  nature,  the  ground  of  eternal 
salvation.  How  widely  such  opinions  differ  from  those  taHght  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, is  manifest.  And  yet  no  one  either  of  the  ancients  or  tlie  moderns  haa 
noticed  this  the  worst  of  all  the  errors  of  Hierax. 

V.  Regarding  this  opinion  as  true  and  undeniable,  he  concluded  that  Jesus 
Christ  interdicted  to  his  followers  marriages,  flesh  and  wine,  and  enjoined  a  life 
void  of  all  pleasures.  According  to  Epiphanius,  (J  1.  p.  710.)  he  thus  reason- 
ed :  Jesus  Christ  introduced  a  new  and  more  perfect  law.  But,  if  we  except 
c('ntinence  only,  every  thing  that  Christ  commands,  was  also  required  in  the 
Old  Testament.  Therefore,  unless  we  would  believe  that  Christ  introduced 
nothing  new,  we  must  believe  that  he  prohibited  marriage,  &,c.  :  Quid  verbum 
novi  prwdicare,  aut  quod  egregium  facinus  moliri  voluit  (Christus)?  Si  Dei 
timorem  dixeris,  hoc  jam  lex  ipsa  continebat.  Si  invidiam,  avaritiam,  injustitiam 
damnasse  dicas ;  haec  omnia  Veteri  Testamento  comprehensa  sunt.  Superest 
ergo,  id  ut  unum  efficere  voluerit,  ut  continentiam  prsedicaret  in  raundo,  ac  sibi 
ipsi  castimoniam  deligeret. — Here  again,  we  perceive  a  wide  difference  between 
Manes  and  Hierax.  For  the  latter  conceded,  that  the  law  of  Moses  was  divine 
and  full  of  good  precepts,  although  in  a  few  things  less  perfect  than  the  law  of 
Christ ;  but  the  former  declared  the  law  of  Moses  to  have  been  ordained  by  the 
Prince  of  darkness.  Moreover,  it  was  for  very  far  different  reasons  that  Manes 
prohibited  marriage,  and  the  use  of  flesh  and  wine. 

VI.  So  then,  Hierax  taught,  that  marriage  was  abolished  by  Jesus  Christ. 
He  admitted,  that  marriages  were  lawful  under  the  Old  Testament;  as  Epipha- 
nius  expressly  states  repeatedly,  (§  1  and  6.  p.  710.  714.)  But  he  tells  us,  that 
Jesus  Christ,  the  author  of  a  holier  and  better  law,  has  abrogated  the  liberty  to 
marry.  And  hence,  as  Epiphanivs  says,  (J  2.  p.  711.):  Neminera  in  gregem 
suum  admittebat,  nisi  virgo  esset,  aut  Monachus,  aut  continens  (£>x/)aT»y,)  aut 
vidua.  But  his  followers,  whether  by  his  permission  and  authority,  or  from 
their  own  choice,  I  know  not;  Mulieres  contubernales  (a-vvus-aicTovs  ywatKag) 
[p.  908.]  secum  habebant,  quas  ad  quotidianum  duntaxat  ministerium  se  adhibere 
gloriabantur.  See  Epiphanius,  (loc.  cit.  \  8.  p.  716.) — Did  Hierax  then  teach, 
tliat  our  Saviour  absolutely  forbid  marriage?  And  did  he  therefore  believe,  that 
no  married  person  can  attain  eternal  salvation  ?  Thus  all,  I  perceive,  explain  his 
views.  And  it  must  be  confessed,  that  the  ancient  writers,  especially  Ejiipha- 
nius  and  Athanasius,  speak  as  if  this  were  true.  Says  Alhanasius,  (Oratio  con- 
tra  Omnes   haereses,   §    9.  tom.   ii.   p.   255.):   Tdv   duinrov   xai   dru^j^^cc-rarov  'lipaKuv 

d^iTtlv  Tov  ya/uoy.  Insanum  et  infelicissimum  Hieracam  virginitatem  extoUere, 
nuptiasque  aapernari.  And  Epiplianius,  (loc.  cit.  \  1.  p.  710.)  says,  that  Hierax 
denied:  Hominem  conjugio  vinctum  coeleste  regnum  consequi  posse. — But  I 


The  Hicracites.  409 

* 
suppose,  that  no  one  of  tho  ancient  heretics,  wlio  were  hostile  to  niarriafres  wjim 
so  infatuated  as  to  maintain,  that  marriages  are  absolutely  prohibited:  1  ima'nuo 
rather,  that  they  all  merely  recommended  celibacy,  as  a  state  more  perfect  and 
more  pleasing  to  God.  No  one  ever  entertained  a  worse  or  a  more  degrading 
opinion  of  matrimony  than  Manes ;  for  he  pronouncod  it  a  device  of  the  Prince 
of  darkness,  for  detaining  wretched  souls  in  the  prison  of  bodies.  And  yet  ho 
could  see,  that  nature  is  more  powerful  than  regulations  and  comminations ;  and 
therefore  he  permitted  the  common  people  to  marry.  And  that  our  Ilierax  did 
the  same  thing,  and  that  the  reports  of  his  abhorrence  of  matrimony  must  net 
be  understood  strictly,  I  am  led  to  believe,  by  the  very  Epiphayiius  whom  those 
follow,  who  tell  us  that  liierax  excluded  all  married  persons  from  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  For  Epiphanius  tells  us,  (^  2.  p.  710,  711.)  that  when  some  persons 
quoted  the  language  of  Paul,  1  Cor.  vii.  2.  (To  avoid  fornication,  let  every  man 
have  his  own  wife,)  in  opposition  to  the  opinion  of  Hierax  respecting  marriage, 

/Zierao;  replied :   'Oux.  iTraivoiv  (fma-l  yd/uov   fAira  r»y   Traf>ou(riaVi    d>Xa  (TV^/gatirruf  wr, 

iV*  fA»  CIS  TTifiTTov  oXid-pov  ifxTTcs-aertv.  Non  laudat  Paulus  post  adventum  Do- 
mini coiijugium,  sed  tollerandum  putat,  ne  majus  in  exitium  praecipites  ruant 
homines.  Now  what  can  be  plainer?  Hierax  did  not  condemn  matrimony  ab- 
solutely; but,  on  the  authority  of  Paul,  he  supposed  it  should  be  tolerated,  on 
account  of  the  infirmity  of  nature.  His  company  therefore  was,  perhaps,  in 
this  respect,  like  the  Manicha3an  community.  Those  who  aimed  at  the  highest 
degree  of  sanctity,  and  wished  their  souls  to  go  to  heaven  immediately  on  leaving 
the  body,  lived  in  celibacy ;  while  others,  whom  the  fear  of  purgation  after 
death  did  not  so  much  terrify,  were  allowed  to  obey  the  instincts  of  nature. 
Perhaps  also, — and  this  is  the  more  probable  supposition, — Hierax  did  not  so 
much  aim  to  found  a  sect,  as  to  establish  a  religious  association  or  order,  like 
those  of  our  Monks,  into  which  he  received  none  but  unmarried  persons. 
Other  Christians  he  accounted,  indeed,  as  brethren,  and  allowed  to  live 
in  their  own  way;  but  he  considered  them  farther  removed  from  eternal 
felicity.  Yet,  whatever  may  have  been  his  institution,  it  appears  that  [p.  909.] 
those  err,  who  suppose  he  absolutely  cut  off  from  everlasting  bliss,  all  married 
persons. 

VII.  This  error  of  Hierax,  respecting  marriage,  if  I  do  not  mistake,  produced 
that  opinion  respecting  Paradise,  which  Epiphanuis  thus  censures  in  him, 
0)  2,  p.  711.):  'Of  TTKTTiuii  Si  ouTos  napdS'iKrc.v  iivai  di^B-HTov.  Paradisum  porro 
sensibilem  esse  non  putat.  This  is  obscure;  but  as  he  adds,  that  Origen  held 
the  same  opinion,  the  meaning  must  be,  that  Hierax  considered  as  mystical,  or 
turned  into  a  sacred  allegorical  fable,  the  narrative  of  Moses  respecting  our  hrst 
parents,  Paradise,  and  the  state  of  innocence.  From  the  reasoning  of  Athana- 
sius  against  him,  (contra  omnes  Christianos,  \  9.  p.  235.)  I  perceive,  that  his  op- 
posers  urged  the  history  of  our  first  parents,  in  refutation  of  his  error  respecting 
the  excellence  and  sanctity  of  celibacy.  Hierax  believed,  that  marriage  was  al- 
lowed, indiscriminately,  under  the  Old  Testament;  but  that  it  was  otherwise 
under  the  New  Testament,  that  Jesus  Christ  did  not  sanction  marriage,  but  only 
tolerated  it  in  the  more  imbecile;  that  he  forbid  it  to  such  as  wished  to  be  ad- 
admitted  to  the  inheritance  of  the  life  to  come,  immediately  after  death.    To 


410  Century  IIL—Section  56. 

confute  this  opinion  of  Hierax,  the  Christians  of  more  correct  views  derived  an 
argument  from  the  history  of  our  tirst  parents  in  Paradise.  God  himself  joined 
the  first  human  beings  in  the  bonds  of  marriage  in  Paradise.  And  can  you  then 
suppose,  that  Christ  has  prohibited,  what  God  himself  approved  and  instituted? 
To  parry  this  argument,  Hierax  denied  tliat  the  account  given  of  Paradise  was 
truly  a  history.  And  as,  like  Origen,  he  was  very  fond  of  allegories,  and  there- 
fore obscured  the  history  of  the  creation,  or  of  the  six  days  work,  with  very 
Jiimsy  allegories  (vanissimis  allegoj'iis,)  as  Epiphanius  expressly  states,  Q  3. 
p.  712.)  can  any  think  it  strange,  that  he  should  treat  the  history  of  Paradise  in 
the  same  manner? 

VIII.  lie  not  only  exhibited  a  severe  mode  of  life,  abstaining  from  all  ani- 
mal food  and  from  wine,  but  he  also  directed  his  followers  to  live  in  the  same 
austere  manner.  See  Epiphanius,  (loc.  cit.  §  3.  p.  712.) — But  that  this  mode 
of  life,  like  his  rule  respecting  marriage,  was  not  imposed  on  all  his  disciples, 
but  only  on  the  more  perfect,  I  think  we  may  learn  from  Epiphanius,  who 

says:     *E("4'^/t.*''     '"^     foXXoi     t^     dvnov     ou    /utT£^ova-l     twv    d\yi^tiwv    durdv    tov 

^oyf/.aTos  Multi  eorum,  qui  sectam  illius  vere  et  ex  animo  profitentur,  ab  ani- 
matis  abstinent.  If  only  many  of  his  true  disciples  lived  on  herbs,  fruits,  and 
pulse;  the  inference  is,  that  the  rigid  abstinence  from  all  flesh  and  wine,  was 
prescribed  only  for  those  who  could  endure  it. 

IX.  He  denied  the  resurrection  of  the  bodies  of  the  dead :  and  to  elude  the 
force  of  the  passages  of  Holy  Scripture,  which  promise  a  renewed  life  to 
deceased  bodies,  he  maintained  that  those  texts  referred  to  the  soul.  Says 
[p.  910.]  Epiphanius,  {\  2.  p.  711.)  he  affirmed;  Solas  animas  resurgere,  et 
spiritualem  nescio  quam  fabulam  contexit :  'AvaTraa-iy  viKfxJJv  xiyii  dvao-raa-tv  -i 
Tuv  -^v^iovi  Kai  TTVivfxariKiiv  Tiva  (pdimcev  fxv^-oxoyiav.  He,  therefore,  undoubt- 
edly, supposed  the  resurrection  to  be  the  illumination  and  renovation  of  souls; 
which  the  sacred  writers  often  compare  with  a  restoration  to  life.  Nor  is  such 
un  opinion  surprising,  in  a  man  inflamed  with  the  love  of  allegories,  and 
disregarding  the  proper  import  of  scripture  language. — How  Hierax  was 
lead  into  this  error,  Epiphanius  has  not  told  us.  Perhaps  his  fondness  for 
allegories  produced  it:  but  more  probably,  he  believed,  with  Manes  and 
others,  that  matter  is  in  itself  evil,  and  that  the  fountain  of  all  depravity  is 
situated  in  the  body ;  whence  it  would  follow,  that  the  body  is  the  prison  of 
the  soul. 

X.  Hierax  excluded  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  all  infants  dying  before 
they  came  to  the  use  of  reason,  on  the  ground  that  rewards  are  due  only  to 
those  who  have  combatted  legitimately  against  their  bodies  and  the  force  of 
their  lusts.  See  Epiphanius,  Q  2.  p.  711.  and  §  4.  p.  713.)— This  dogma  of 
Hierax,  and  the  ground  of  it,  afford  strong  and  just  suspicion,  that  he 
embraced  corrupt  opinions  respecting  the  redemption  and  satisfaction  for 
sin  by  Jesus  Christ;  and  that  he  supposed,  eternal  life  is  to  be  obtained, 
not  so  much  by  fiiith  in  Jesus  Christ,  as  by  one's  own  efforts  to  overcome 
the  depravity  of  nature,  or  the  commotions  of  the  body  and  the  senses.  For, 
if  children,  dying  before  the  use  of  reason,  fail  of  salvation,  because  they 
have  not  conflicted,  or  have  not,  by  reason,  overcome  the  incitements  to  sin ; 


The  Hlcracitcs.  411 

it  follows,  that  those  who  attain  to  salvation,  are  crowned  solely  bocauso 
they  resisted  strenuously  their  natural  propensities.  But  the  sterility  and 
indiscretion  of  Epiphanius^  who  expatiates  largely  upon  doctrines  imper- 
fectly and  cloudily  explained,  prevent  our  forming  a  just  estimate  of  this 
opinion  of  Hierax. 


END   OF   THE   THIRD   CENTURY. 


THE 

ECCLESIASTICAL     HISTORY 


OF    TilE 


FOURTH  CENTURY. 


§    I.    Attempts  of  the  Pagan  Priests  to  get  up  a  new  persecution. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  fourth  century  after  the  birth  of 
the  Savior  of  mankind,  the  Eoman  empire  was  under  the  govern- 
ment of  four  sovereigns ;  of  whom  the  two  highest  in  rank, 
Diocletian  and  Maximianus  Herculius^  were  called  Augusti^  and  the 
two  lower  in  rank,  Constantius  Ghlorus  and  Maximianus  Galenus^ 
were  called  Cesars  ;  but  each  of  them  had  supreme  poAver  over 
the  province  allotted  to  him.  Under  these  four  Emperors,  the 
state  of  the  christian  community,  as  well  as  that  of  the  common- 
wealth, was  quite  flourishing.  For  the  chief  of  the  Augusti, 
Diocletian^  although  superstitious  and  an  assiduous  worshipper  of 
the  Gods,  yet  harbored  no  ill  will  against  the  Christians ;  and  the 
first  of  the  Cesars,  Constantius  Chlorus^  was  averse  to  the  pagan 
religion,  followed  reason  as  his  religious  guide,  was  friendly  to 
the  Christians,  and  preferred  them  before  the  idolaters.  Nor  did 
the  future  portend  any  worse  condition  of  the  church  :  but  ra- 
ther, it  was  to  be  expected,  that  Christianity  Avould  soon  gain  the 
ascendancy  in  the  Koman  empire,  or  at  least  obtain  as  much  in- 
fluence and  reputation  as  the  old  superstition.  The  friends  of 
paganism,  particularly  the  priests,  perceiving  the  danger,  exerted 
themselves  to  the  utmost  to  raise  a  new  persecution  against  the 
Christians,  who  then  felt  themselves  too  secure :  and,  by  fictitious 
oracles  and  other  frauds,  they  labored  especially  to  excite  Diocle- 
tian^ whom  they  knew  to  be  timid  and  credulous,  to  enact  laws 
against  the  Christians. (') 

(1)  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  viii.  c.   1.  p.  291.)  eloquently  describes  the 
flourishing  state  of  the  christian  community,  at  the  beginning  of  this  century 


Maddnations  of  the  Pagan  Priests.  413 

before  the  rise  of  the  Dioclelian  persecution;  and  also  the  security  felt  fp.  912.] 
by  the  christians  in  consequence  of  their  prosperity,  and  tlieir  vices  and  conten- 
tions.    The  pahices  of  the  Emperors  were  full  of  Christians,  and  no  one  hincU'red 
their  freely  professing  and  worshippinir  Christ  without  any  fear.     Some  of  them 
were  selected  for  confidential  friends  of  the  Emperors,  the  «rnvernors  of  pro- 
>inces,  magistrates,  and  military  commnnders.     And  tlie  bishops  and  ministers 
of  religion  were  treated  with  great  respect,  even  by  those  who  preferred  the 
ancient  religion  before  that  of  Christ.     A  vast  multitude  of  people,  continualJv, 
every   where,   abandoning  the  Gods,  made  profession    of  Christianity.     And 
hence,  in  all  the  cities,  large  and  spacious  buildings  were  erected,  in  which  the 
people  publicly  assembled  for  religious  worship.     So  that  there  remained  but 
one  thing  to  be  desired  by  the  Christians,  namely,  that  one  or  more  of  the  ?^m- 
perors  might  embrace  their  religion;  of  which  the  consequence   would    un- 
doubtedly  be,  that  the  worship  of  the  Gods  would  become  prostrate,  in  a  great 
part  of  the  Roman  empire,  and  the  Christian  religion  might  contest  wi'.h  the 
pagan  for  the  preeminence.     And  the  state  of  the  empire  at  that  time,  afforded 
the  observing  not  a  little  hope,  that  the  desires  of  Christians  would  not  be  dis- 
appointed.    Diocletian,  although  timid  and  immoderately  addicted  to  supersti- 
tion, was  yet  averse  from  blood  and  slaughter;  and  he  had  Christians  among 
his  familiar  friends,  who,  understanding  well  the  genius  and  chnracter  of  the 
man,  might  perhaps,  if  no    obstacle  was  raised,  withdraw  the  manageable  man 
from  his  idolatry.     Besides,  Prisca  the  Emperor's  wife,  had  renounced  the  wor- 
ship of  the  Gods,  and  privately  joined  the  Christian  church.      And  Constantins 
Chlorus,  his  colleague,  who  ruled  over  Spain,  Gaul  and  Britain,  was  a  seuii- 
Christian,  and  favored  the  Christians  to  the  utmost  of  his  power.     And  his  sou 
Constantine,  who  afterwards  obtained  the  appellation  of  the  Great,  a  youth  en- 
dowed with  extraordinary  powers  of  mind  and  genius,  and  admired  equally  by 
the  people  and  the  soldiers,  was  living  very  honorably  in  the  court  of  Diocletian, 
with  the  highest  and  most  certain  prospect  of  attaining  to  the  rank  of  an  Em- 
peror.    Being  the  child  of  a  ftither,  who  was  the  worshipper  of  the  one  God, 
and  the  friend  of  Christians,  and  of  a  Christian  mother,  Helena,  he  had  un- 
doubtedly received  from  his  parents  a  hatred  of  superstition,  and  kind  feelings 
towards  Christians  aiM  Christian  worship;  and  although  he  did  not  publicly 
profess  Christ,  he  doubtless  showed  by  his  conduct,  what  would  take  i)lace  if 
he  obtained  supreme  power.     I  have  pronounced  Helena,  the  mother  of  Con- 
stantine the  Great,  a   Christian :  for  I  do  not  hesitate  to  admit  as  true,  what 
Tiieodoret  states,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  i.  c.  17.)  that  she  instilled  into  her  son  the 
elements  of  piety.     From  this  opinion  I  am  not  induced  to  recede,  by  a  passage 
in  Eusebius,  (de  vita  Constantini,  L.  iii.  c.  47.  p.  50G.)  from  which  learned  men 
would  prove,  that  he  converted  her  from  the  worship  of  the  Gods  to  the  Chris- 
tian religion.     For  that  passage  may  very  suitably  be  understood  of  his  insi)ir- 
ing  her  with  a  desire  to  manifest,  by  actions  and  various  works,  her  piety  to- 
wards God.     Maximianus  Galerius,  the  last  of  the  Emperors,  was  indeed  un- 
friendly to  the  Christians;  but,  being  the  son-in-law  o^  Diocletian,  he  [p.  913.] 
had  a  wife,  Valeria,  who  followed  the  pious  example  of  her  mother  Prisca,  and 
was  averse  from  the  worship  of  imaginary  Deities.     The  state  of  the  Roman 


414  Century  IV.—Sectlon  1. 

commonwealth,  at  the  commencement  of  this  century,  was  theiefore  such,  as  to 
indicate  a  great  religious  change,  and  vast  accessions  to  the  Christian  cause,  aa 
near  at  hand.  Situated  as  the  three  imperial  courts  then  were,  a  slight  unfore- 
seen occurrence  might  divest  the  priests  and  worshippers  of  the  Gods  of  a  large 
part  of  their  honors  and  emoluments,  and  place  the  Christian  religion  on  the 
throne.  As  this  danger  was  much  better  understood  by  the  pontiffs  of  the 
Gods  and  the  friends  of  the  ancient  religion,  than  it  can  be  by  us  with  the  few 
and  dubious  monuments  before  us,  who  can  wonder,  that  they  exerted  all  their 
diligence  and  cunning  to  avert  that  danger '^  But,  for  their  own  preservation 
and  that  of  their  Deities,  it  was  necessary,  that  a  persecution  more  violent  than 
any  of  the  preceding  and  more  pernicious  to  the  Christians,  should  be  got  up 
by  the  authority  not  merely  of  one  but  of  all  the  Emperors,  and  should  extend 
through  all  the  Roman  provinces:  for  the  persecutions  under  the  former  Empe- 
rors were  only  partial  tempests,  of  short  continuance  or  limited  extent ;  or  they 
were  so  obstructed  in  various  ways,  that,  though  not  a  little  afflictive  to  the 
Christian  cause,  they  did  not  destroy  its  vital  ^nergies.  Yet  it  was  a  very  diffi- 
cult business,  which  necessity  compelled  the  patrons  of  the  Gods  to  undertake. 
For  they  had  to  act  upon  a  man  sluggish,  timid,  encompassed  by  Christians, 
and  of  a  disposition  by  no  means  cruel,  averse  from  shedding  blood,  and  fond 
of  peace  and  quietude  :  for,  that  such  was  Diocletian,  both  his  actions  and  the 
testimony  of  the  ancients  show.  But  as  he  was  both  credulous  and  supersti- 
tious, they  concluded  to  terrify  him  with  fictitious  oracles,  omens,  and  other  ar- 
tifices ;  and  thus  to  obtain  from  him  hy  fear ^  what  they  could  not  accomplish  by 
arguments.  History  acquaints  us  with  two  of  their  artifices  ;  which  demonstrate 
the  fears  of  the  priests  as  well  as  their  malice  and  cunning.  One  of  them  is 
stated  by  a  very  distinguished  and  trust-worthy  witness,  the  Emperor  Consian- 
tine  the  Great,  in  his  public  letter  to  the  provincials  of  the  East,  (apud  Eusehi- 
urn  de  vita  Constantini  L.  ii.  c.  50,  51.  p.  467.)  It  was  reported  to  the  Empe- 
ror, that  Apollo  had  complained, — not  through  the  priest  by  whom  he  usually 
gave  forth  his  oracles,  but  personally,  by  a  mournful  voice  issuing  from  a 
cavern,  Obstare  sibi  justos  viros  in  terra  degentes,  quo  minus  vera  praediceret, 
atque  idcirco  falsa  ex  tripode  oracula  reddi.  Diocletian,  when  informed  of  this 
oracle,  at  once  anxiously  enquired  of  the  courtiers  about  him,  who  were  those 
Just  persons,  whom  Apollo  accused.  And  some  of  the  sacrificers  or  priests  of 
the  Gods,  being  present,  instantl}'-  replied,  that  they  were  the  Christians.  On 
hearing  this,  the  Emperor  was  in  a  rage,  and  forthwith  decided,  that  severe  laws 
should  be  issued  against  the  Christians,  and  that  their  religion  should  be  cxtir- 
[p.  914.]  pated.  But  soon  after,  being  an  unstable  man,  and  perhaps  being  pa- 
cified by  his  wife  and  christian  friends,  he  abandoned  his  designs  and  returned 
again  to  a  state  of  tranquillity. — Of  the  reality  of  the  occurrence,  there  can  be 
no  doubt ;  for  Constantine  was  himself  present  at  the  time,  and  he  affirms  on 
oath,  or  calls  God  to  witness,  that  he  speaks  the  truth :  Te  testem  appello, 
Deus  altisime. — This  oracle,  it  is  manifest,  was  a  fabrication  of  the  priests  of 
Apollo  :  and  it  obviously  had  a  twofold  object.  In  the  first  place,  the  Chris- 
tians, in  order  to  convert  the  idol  worshippers  to  wisdom,  demonstrated  the 
falsehood  and  equivocation  of  the  oracles  uttered  by  the  Gods ;  and  thence  they 


Machinations  of  the  Pagan  Priests.  415 

inferred,  that  the  Deities  worshipped  by  Hie  pagans,  were  nnreal  beinf^s.  And 
it  is  well  known,  that  the  priests  defended  the  truth  and  Hanetity  of  the  patran 
religion  by  divination;  and  therefore,  if  this  argument  were  overthrown  the 
chief  prop  and  support  of  the  popular  religion  was  removed.  And  perhaps  iho 
Christians  who  were  the  ministers  and  friends  of  the  Emperor,  had  asaaili-d  the 
superstition  of  Diocletian  himself  by  arguments  from  the  vanity  and  falsity  of 
divination  and  oracles.  The  faet  alleged,  the  priests  could  not  deny  :  for  they 
were  daily  confounded  by  examples  of  the  llexible,  false,  and  dubious  oracles. 
And  hence  they  only  attempted  to  account  for  the  fact,  that  the  Cods  no  longer 
relieved,  as  formerly,  the  anxieties  of  those  who  consulted  them,  with  clear  and 
certain  responses.  And  honest  Apollo  himself  acknowledged,  that  being  hard 
pressed  by  the  Christians,  his  oracles  had  failed  of  late :  but  he  charged  the 

blame  on  ihejust  or  the  Christians,  who  withstood  his  power  of  divination. 

But  whatever  construction  we  put  upon  it,  the  response  was  not  only  a  stn{)id 
but  a  hazardous  one  :  for  the  Emperor  might  infer  from  it,  that  the  Christians' 
God,  and  Christians  themselves,  were  more  powerful  than  Apollo.  Yet  with 
Buch  a  man  as  Diocletian,  imbecile,  sluggish,  and  superstitious,  this  was  a  grave 
and  important  matter. — The  epithet  ^us/,  given  by  Apollo  to  Christians  in  the 
oracle,  was  not  a  commendation,  as  some  learned  men  have  supposed.  For 
who  ever  praises  his  enemies?  It  was  rather  a  reproach.  And  Apollo  denomi- 
nates those  the  just,  who  vainly  and  folsely  boast  of  their  justice,  who  without 
any  reason  pretend  to  be  more  just  than  others,  and  who  maintained  that  the 
whole  worship  of  God  is  summed  up  in  righteousness,  and  therefore  contemned 
the  sacrifices,  the  ceremonies  of  their  ancestors,  and  the  public  religious  rites. — 
With  this  first  object  of  the  oracle  under  consideration,  another  was  very  closely 
connected.  By  this  oracle,  the  priests  wished  to  stimulate  the  Emperor  to  put 
an  end  to  the  peace  of  the  Christians,  and  to  induce  him  to  enact  severe  laws 
against  them. — This  event  occurred,  undoubtedly,  in  the  year  302,  or  the  year 
before  the  persecution. 

A  little  afterward,  another  plot  of  the  same  character,  occurred  in  the  East. 
Cf  this  we  have  an  account  in  Lactanlius,  (Institut.  divinar.  L.  iv.  c.  27.  p.  393. 
edit.  Heumann.)  and  in  the  work  generally  ascribed  to  Lactanlius,(d(i  mortibus 
persequutor.  c.  10.  p.  943.)  In  the  year  302,  while  Diocletian  was  in  the  [p.  915.] 
East,  as  his  fears  led  him  to  inquire  into  future  events,  he  sacrificed  sheep,  and 
searched  in  their  livers  for  indications  of  coming  events,  according  to  the  rules 
of  haruspicy.  The  haruspices,  cunning  and  crafty  men,  pretended  not  to  find 
the  usual  signs  in  the  entrails,  and  frequently  repeated  their  sacrifices.  After 
several  fruitless  researches,  the  master  of  the  haruspices  said :  Idcirco  non  res- 
pondere  sacra,  (that  is,  the  reason  why  future  events  could  not  be  divined  by 
the  entrails  of  the  sheep,  was)  quod  rpbus  divinis  profani  homines  (thus  the  im- 
postor designated  the  christians.)  interessent.  For  among  the  ministers  and 
friends  of  the  Emperor,  who,  according  to  the  rules  of  their  station,  followed 
him  into  the  temple,  and  attended  him  while  sacrificing,  there  were  many  Chris- 
tians. Lactantius  believed,  that  here  was  a  miracle;  for  the  Christians  who  at- 
tended on  the  sacrificing  Emperor,  he  says :  Immortale  signum  (the  sign  of  tho 
cross,)  frontibus  suis  imposuisse  :  hoc  facto,  daemones  fugatos  ct  sacra  turbata 


416  Cenhmj  IV. — Section  2. 

esse.  Many  of  the  moderns  follow  the  judgment  of  Lactantius.  And  thai  lie 
should  attribute  to  the  cross  the  power  of  chasing  away  demons,  and  should 
consider  haruspiey  an  invention  of  the  Devil  for  deluding  mortals,  I  do  not  much 
wonder :  but  when  I  see  men  of  our  own  age,  and  not  destitute  of  learning, 
agreeing  with  him,  and  entertaining  no  doubts  that  the  haruspices  did  foretell  fu- 
ture occurrences  by  the  entrails  of  sacriticed  animals,  and  that  the  sign  of  the 
cross  could  frustrate  this  sort  of  divination,  I  am  at  a  loss  what  to  say.  It  is 
very  manifest,  that  the  haruspices  wished  to  terrify  the  timid  and  superstitious 
Emperor,  who  was  continually  surrounded  by  Christians;  and  they  pretended, 
that  the  business  of  divination  failed  of  success,  as  Apollo  had  already  declared, 
because  Christians  were  present;  and  their  aim  was,  to  stimulate  the  Emperor, 
who  was  eager  to  know  future  events,  to  drive  Christians  from  his  court,  and 
subject  them  to  persecution.  Besides,  the  soothsayers,  the  diviners,  the  augurs 
and  the  haruspices^  as  appears  from  many  examples,  could  not  easily  practice 
their  futile  arts  in  the  presence  of  Christians,  who,  as  they  were  aware,  could 
see  through  their  tricks,  and  were  ready  to  expose  them. — This  new  fraud  of 
the  priests  was  more  successful  than  the  former :  for  Diocletian^  boiling  with 
indignation,  as  LaLantiiis  states :  Non  eos  (tantum,)  qui  sacris  ministrabant,  sed 
(etiam)  universes,  qui  in  palatio  erant,  sacriticare  jubebat,  etin  eos,  si  detrectas- 
sent,  verberibus  animadverti,  etiam  milites  cogi  ad  sacrificia,  datis  adpraepositos 
litteris,  praecipiebnt,  ut  qui  non  paruissent,  militia  solverentur.  But,  as  the  Empe- 
ror was  unstable,  and  not  of  a  cruel  character,  this  fit  of  rage  also  soon  cooled  down. 

S  II.  Maximianus  Galcrias  moves  Diocletian  to  commence  Per- 
secution, A,  D,  303.  As  tliese  artifices  produced  little  effect,  the 
priests  used  Maximianus  Galenus^  a  man  naturally  cruel,  pround, 
superstitious,  barbarous,  and  hostile  to  the  Christians,  for  inflam- 
ing the  mind  of  his  father-in-laAV  against  the  Christians.  And 
[p.  916.]  this  high  patron  of  the  sinking  cause  of  the  Gods,  seems 
to  have  been  found  ready  at  hand,  rather  than  sought  for,  by 
the  anxious  ministers  of  the  Gods.  For  his  own  rough  and  furi- 
ous temperament,  which  delighted  in  nothing  but  war,  and  his 
mother's  extravagant  devotion  to  the  Gods  and  to  the  priests, 
and  that  lust  of  power  with  which  he  burned,  sufficiently 
prompted  him  to  extirpate  a  class  of  people  opposed  to  his  de- 
sires and  purposes.  He  therefore  did  not  cease  to  urge  and  im- 
portune Diocletian^  then  residing  at  Kicomedia,  till  he  finally  ob- 
tained from  him,  in  the  year  303,  an  edict,  by  which  the  temples 
of  the  Christians  throughout  the  lloman  empire  were  to  be  de- 
molished, their  sacred  books  to  be  burned,  and  Christians  them- 
selves to  be  deprived  of  all  their  civil  privileges  and  honors.(') 
This  first  edict,  although  it  spared  the  lives  of  the  Christians,  yet 
caused  the  destruction  of  many,  who  refused  to  deliver  up  to  the 


Persecution  begun  A.  1).  303.  417 

magistrates  the  sacred  books,  tlic  furniture  of  the  temples  and  the 
treasures  (of  the  churches,)  as  the  imperial  law  demanded.  And 
yet  many,  even  among  the  bisliops  and  clergy,  to  save  their  lives 
obeyed  the  commands  of  the  Emj^eror,  and  gave  up  the  books  in 
their  hands  and  the  sacred  utensils  ;  and  these  persons,  who  sup- 
posed themselves  guilty  of  only  a  slight  fault,  were  considered 
by  the  more  resolute  Christians  as  having  committed  sacrilege, 
and  were  therefore  reproachfully  denominated  Tradiiors.i^) 

(1)  This  most  bloody  of  all  the  persecutions  against  the  Christians,  a  per- 
eecution  of  ten  years  continuance,  has  been  called  the  persecution  of  DukIc- 
tian ;  but  it  might  more  properly  be  called  the  persecution  of  Maximian.  For 
although  Diocletian,  being  deceived  by  the  frauds  of  the  priests,  inflicted  some 
injuries  on  the  Christians  resident  at  court,  or  attached  to  tiie  camps,  and  also 
subsequently  enacted  laws  adverse  to  them ;  yet  it  is  certain,  that  tlie  principal 
author  of  this  calamity  was  his  son-in-law,  Maximianus  Gakrius, — a  man  of 
low  birth,  agrestic,  distinguished  for  nothing  but  military  bravery,  and  friend)}' 
to  none  but  soldiers, — who  extorted  from  his  unwilling  and  reluctating  father- 
in-law  the  edicts  destructive  to  the  Christians.  It  is  true  that  Diocletian,  on 
occasion  of  two  conflagrations  in  the  palace  at  Nicomedia,  came  down  upon  tho 
Christians  of  that  city,  in  his  first  law  against  Christians.  But  those  who  at- 
tentively  inspect  this  furious  attack  upon  them  by  the  personal  direction  of  the 
Emperor,  will  perceive  that  the  Christians  were  arraigned  before  a  court  and 
punished  as  incendiaries^  or  not  on  reh'gious  grounds,  but  as  perpetrators  of  an 
alledged  crime.  And  hence  this  calamity,  though  interwoven  with  the  great  tra- 
gedy, should  be  considered  as  a  distinct  and  separate  act.  I  may  add,  that  in 
less  than  two  years  from  the  commencement  of  the  persecution,  Diocletian 
relinquished  the  imperial  power,  and  retired  to  private  life ;  whence  it  [p.  917.] 
is  clear  that  the  greatest  part  of  the  persecution,  or  that  decreed  and  inflicted 
on  Christians  during  the  eight  following  years,  is  not  attributable  to  him.  And 
lastly^  Maximian  himself,  in  the  edict  by  which,  a  little  before  his  death,  he  ro- 
stored  peace  to  the  Christians,  confesses  that  he  himself  moved  the  persecution. 
See  Eusebius,  (Histor.  Ecclcs.  L.  viii.c.  17.  p.  315.)  and  Lactantius,  (de  morlibus 
persequutor.  c.  34.  p.  984.  edit  Ileumann.) 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  pagan  priests,  who  had  in  vain  attempted  to 
stimulate  Diocletian  to  attack  the  Christians,  were  the  principal  authors  and  in- 
fitigators  of  this  bloody  persecution  by  Maximian,  a  barbarous  man,  and  igno- 
rant  of  everything  except  military  aflfairs,  and  of  course  both  superstitious  and 
cruel.  And  men  like  him,  attached  to  nothing  but  lust  and  war,  usually  care 
little  about  religion  and  sacred  things.  Yet  such  persons,  chiefly  occupied  with 
lust  and  war,  if  their  passions  are  roused  by  cunning  men,  can  readily  eng.-ige 
in  the  most  unjust  and  cruel  projects;  and  can  persevere  in  prosecuting  tlKnn, 
if  there  are  causes  which  confirm  and  strengthen  their  unrighteous  plans  and 
purposes.  Maximian  himself,  in  his  edict  in  favor  of  the  Christians  just  men- 
tioned, states,  that  attachment  to  the  religion  handed  down  from  the  nncicnta, 
VOL.  n.  28 


418  Century  IV.—Section  2. 

was  a  reason  why  he  assailed  the  Christians,  the  followers  of  a  new  religion. 
Ho  says:  Volueramus  antehac  juxta  leges  veteres  et  publicam  disciplinam  Ro- 
manorum  cuncta  corrigerc,  atque  id  providere,  ut  etiam  Christiani,  qui  parentum 
suorum  reliquerant  sectam,  ad  bonaa  meiites  redirent.  I  have  no  doubt,  that  ho 
wrote  this  in  sincerity :  but  undoubtedly,  this  zeal  for  the  Romish  superstition, 
in  a  man  caring  only  for  the  body  and  disregarding  the  soul,  would  have  been 
sluggish  and  inefficient,  if  it  had  not  been  excited  and  inflamed  by  the  priests. 
— But  the  priests  were  aided  by  the  querulousness  of  his  mother,  Ronmlia, 
whose  influence  with  her  son  was  very  great.  She  was,  mulier  admodum  super- 
stitiosa,  as  Lactanlias  says,  (de  mortibus  persequutor.  c.  11.  p.  944.)  and  when 
she  had  conceived  hatred  against  the  Christians,  Filium  non  minus  superstitio- 
sum  querelis  muliebribus  ad  tollendos  homines  incitabat.  The  cause  of  her 
hatred  to  the  Christians,  Lactantius  tells  us,  was  this  :  She  offered  sacrifices  al- 
most every  day,  and  then  held  feasts  upon  the  meats  sacrificed  and  presented  to 
the  Gods.  But  the  Christians  would  not  attend  those  feasts ;  nor  could  they 
do  it,  consistently  with  their  principles.  It  is  presumeable,  that  this  undoubt- 
edly proud  woman  regarded  this  conduct  as  disrespectful  to  herself.  But  be- 
sides this  reason,  I  apprehend,  another  may  be  gathered  out  of  Lac(a7itiu.% 
although  it  is  not  expressly  stated.  He  tells  us  that  Roniulia,  Deorum  nionti- 
um  cultricem  fuisse;  i.  e.  that  she  worshipped  the  Deities  supposed  by  the  Ro- 
mans to  preside  over  mountains.  Now  the  Christians  of  that  age,  as  much  as 
possible,  chose  to  erect  their  sacred  edifices  on  mountains  and  elevated  places, 
[p.  918.]  The  Christian  temple  at  Nicomedia,on  which  the  persecution  first  com- 
menced and  which  was  destroyed  by  command  of  the  Emperor  before  it  was  com- 
pleted, was  situated  on  a  mountain :  In  alto  constituta  ecclesia,  ex  palatio  (Inipe- 
ratoris)  videbatur ;  says  Lactantius,  (loc.  cit.  c.  12.  p.  947.)  And  at  Carthage  also, 
as  we  have  seen  in  another  place,  there  was  a  christian  church  built  on  a  moun- 
tain. I  therefore  suspect,  that  this  woman  regarded  the  christian  temple  on  tho 
mountain  as  highly  injurious  to  those  Gods  whom  she  honored ;  and  on  this 
account,  she  besought  her  son  with  tears  and  entreaties  to  suppress  this  re- 
proach to  the  Gods.  This  conjecture  is  strengthened  by  the  consideration,  that 
she  and  her  son  were  undoubtedly  then  living  at  Nieomedia,  in  the  imperial 
palace,  and  of  course  had  the  Christians'  temple  continually  before  their  eyes. 
— This  ground  for  persecuting  the  Christians,  is  dishonorable  to  Maximian ; 
but  in  the  edict  already  twice  mentioned,  he  states  another  reason  rather  more  ho- 
norable and  not  improbable ;  which  it  is  strange  that  no  one  has  mentioned  when 
treating  on  this  subject.  For  he  says,  that  he  assailed  the  Christians  because 
they  had  departed  from  the  religion  of  their  ancestors,  and  had  become  split 
into  various  sects  and  parties,  differing  in  opinion  and  practice.  Siquidem  qua- 
dam  ratione  tanta  eosdem  Christianos  voluntas  invasisset,  et  tanta  stultitia  oc- 
cupasset,  ut  non  ilia  veterum  instituta  sequerentur,  qure  forsitan  primi  parentes 
eorundem  constituerant,  sed  pro  arbitrio  suo,  atque  ut  hisdem  erat  libitum,  ita 
sibimet  leges  facerent,  quas  observarent,  et  per  diversa  (loca)  varios  populos 
congregarent:  (i.  e.  and  formed  various  sects  and  churches  in  divers  places.  Eu- 
sebius  correctly  apprehended  the  meaning  of  the  Emperor,  and  expressed  it  in 
his  Greek  version  of  the  edict ;  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  viii.  c.  17.)  Maximian  there- 


Persecution  begun  A.  D.  303.  419 

fore  distinctly  charired  upon  the  Christians  : — I.  That  the  roli<rion  of  Christians 
in  that  ixga  differed  essentially  frum  the  first  or  primitive  Christianity,  establish- 
ed  by  their  progenitors.— II.  That  in   tlie  primitive  reliirion  of  Christians,  the 
institutions  of  the  Romans  and  other  nations  were  undoubtedly  retained  and 
approved;  that  is,  that  the  worship  of  inferior  Deities  or  Gods,  to  whom  the  su- 
preme Deity  committed  the  government  of  the  world,  was  not  rejected  or  dis. 
approved   by  the  author  and  head  of  this  religion. — III.  IJut  that  the  later 
Christians  had  abandoned  that  first  law  of  their  religion,  and  had  substituted  in 
place  of  it  new  regulations. — IV.  And  hence  various  sects,  holding  very  rtiHl'- 
rent  opinions,  had  arisen  among  them,  in  the  several  provinces  of  the  Roman 
empire.     This  reason  for  the  persecution  was  unquestionably  suggested  to  the 
Emperor,  who  was  wholly  ignorant  of  such  matters,  by  those  Platonic  philoso- 
phers,  hostile  to  the  Christians,  some  of  whom  were  called  to  that  council  at 
the  court  of  Nicomedia,  which  deliberated  on  the  subject  of  crushing  and  des- 
troying the  Christians.     For  these  philosophers,  as  appears  from  credible  tcsti- 
mony  elsewhere  adduced,  wished  to  make  out,  that  the  later  Christians  had 
corrupted   the  religion  taught  by  Christ,  and  had  swerved  from  the  injunctions 
of  their  master:  That  Jesus  Christ  sought  indeed  to  correct  certain  faults  [p.  919.] 
and  imperfections  in  the  ancient  religions,  to  restore  the  knowledge  and  worship 
of  the  supreme  Deity,  which  had  been  obscured  and  almost  extinguished  by  the 
worship  of  the  Gods,  and  to  abrogate  some  useless  and  superstitious  ceremonies; 
but  he  by  no  means  wished  to  subvert  the  most  ancient  religion,  or  the  worship 
and  honors  of  the  ministers  of  divine  providence, that  i.s,  of  the  inferior  Deities  who 
presided  over  nations  and  departments  of  nature:  for  nature  itself  and  right  reason 
taught  us,  that  some  honor  or  worship,  though  much  less  than  to  the  supreme 
Deity,  ought  to  be  paid   to  those  exalted  Beings  whom  God  employed  in  the 
government  of  human  affairs :  And  although  the  priests  and  the  people  went 
too  far  in  this  matter,  and  transferred  the  ministers  of  God  into  Gods,  yet  the 
thing  itself,  if  restored  to  its  primitive  integrity,  could  by  no  means  be  con- 
demned or  disapproved  :  And  that  the  Christians,  as  they  had  departed  from  the 
intentions  and  precepts  of  their  master  in  this  as  well  as  other  things,  so  they 
sought  wholly  to  subvert  all  the  institutions  of  the  ancients  and  the  worship  or 
the  Gods,  and  even  wished  to  have  Christ  worshipped  as  a  God,  although  ho 
never  arrogated  to  himself  divine  honors :  That  having  thus  changed  the  origi- 
nal laws  of  Christ,  it  followed  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that  the  Christians 
became  divided  into  various  mutually  hostile  sects.     Such  were  the  common 
sentiments  of  Ammonius  and  most  of  his  followers :  and  they  undoubtedly 
brought  them  forward,  to  fix  the  fluctuating  and  hesitating  mind  of  Diocletian, 
and  to  induce  him  to  enact  laws  against  the  Christians.     And  they  said  it  waa 
right,  that  the  Christians,  who,  as  Maximanian  says,  Parentum  suoruin  sectam 
reliquerant,  should  be  compelled — not  indeed  by  capital   punishments,  yet  hy 
severe  laws, — to  return  back  to  their  ancient  religion  :  which  if  they  should  Jo, 
all  disputes  respecting  the  Gods  and  religious  subjects  would  be  at  an  end. — 
Lastly,  it  can  scarcely  be  doubted,  if  we  consider  the  conduct  of  Maximian  and 
the  state  of  the  republic  at  that  time,  that  political  reasons  also  conduced  to  re- 
commend the  war  upon  the  Christians:  and  these,  perhaps,  had  more  influence 


420  Century  IV.—Section  2. 

on  the  mind  of  Maximian,  than  the  exhortations  of  the  priests,  the  entreaties  of 
his  mother,  or  the  reasonings  of  the  philosophers.  Being  inflated  with  pride 
and  the  lust  of  dominion, — for  he  ridiculously  wished  to  be  thought  procreated 
by  the  God  Mars ;  (Sec  LaclaiUius,  loc.  cit.  c.  9.  p.  942:  Victor,  Epitome  c.  35.) 
— he  could  brook  neither  a  superior  nor  an  equal,  but  wished  to  dethrone  the 
other  Emperors,  and  to  rule  the  Roman  empire  alone.  It  is  well  known  that 
two  years  after  the  persecution  commenced,  he  deprived  both  his  ftither-in-law 
and  Maximianus  Herculeus  of  the  imperial  dignity.  But  the  Christians  appear- 
ed to  stand  in  the  way  of  his  ambition.  For  they  were  completely  devoted  to 
Constantius  Chlorus  and  his  very  promising  son  Conslantine,  both  of  whom 
greatly  favored  tlie  Christian  worship  and  cared  little  lor  the  Gods;  and  under 
their  government,  the  Christians  hoped  to  enjoy  happy  times.  And  hence  it 
was  easily  foreseen,  that  the  Christians  would  take  arms,  and  would  vigorously 
[p.  920.]  defend  their  protectors  if  any  attempt  were  made  either  to  exclude  them 
from  the  throne  or  to  crush  them  by  war.  But  Maximian,  the  youngest  of  the 
Emperors,  could  not  hope  to  become  lord  of  the  whole  empire,  except  by  the 
extermination  of  Constantius  and  his  son.  And,  therefore,  to  prevent  the  occur- 
rence of  a  dubious  civil  war,  in  which  the  Christians  would  combat  for  Constati- 
tins  and  his  son,  and  the  worshippers  of  the  Gods  for  Maximian,  it  seemed 
necessary  to  weaken  the  very  considerable  power  and  resources  of  the  Chris- 
tians, and,  if  possible,  to  exterminate  their  religion,  before  the  contest  for  supre- 
macy in  the  republic  was  commenced. 

Moved  by  such  considerations,  in  the  year  303,  Maximian  proceeded  to 
Nicomedia,  the  capitol  of  Bithynia,  whither  Diocletian  had  retired  on  coming 
from  the  East,  for  the  purpose  of  persuading  his  father-in-law  to  enter  into  a 
public  and  formal  war  against  the  Christians.  On  this  subject,  there  was,  be- 
tween the  father-in-law  and  the  son-in-law,  strong  opposition  both  of  feelings 
and  opinions.  Diocletian,  indeed,  conceded  to  his  son-in-law,  that  Christians 
might  be  excluded  from  the  palace  and  the  army,  and  that  all  the  attendants  on 
the  palace  and  the  soldiers  should  be  compelled  to  sacrifice  to  the  Gods;  but  he 
refused  to  issue  public  laws  against  the  Christians,  and  especially  to  inflict  on 
them  capital  punishments.  Says  Lactantius,  (loc.  cit.  c.  11.  p.  945.):  Ostendebat 
quam  perniciosum  esset,  inquietari  orbem  terrae,  fundi  sanguinem  multorum. 
Satis  esse,  si  palatinos  tantum  et  milites  ab  ea  religione  prohiberet.  But  this 
moderation  w^ould  not  comport  at  all  with  the  designs  of  Maximian.  He  wished 
to  reign  sole  Emperor;  and  of  this  he  could  have  no  hopes,  if  the  Christians 
were  spared.  He  therefore  urged,  that  public  laws  should  be  enacted  against  all 
Christians  throughout  the  Roman  empire ;  and  that  they,  who — sacrificio  re- 
pugnassent,  vivos  cremandos  esse.  The  sooner  to  accomplish  his  designs,  and 
wholly  overthrow  the  Christian  community  at  once,  he  was  disposed  to  proceed, 
not  as  in  the  former  persecutions,  which  sought  gradually  to  overcome  the 
minds  of  Christians  by  exhortations,  menaces,  imprisonments,  tortures,  confis- 
cations of  goods,  banishments,  &lc.  but  to  adopt  a  more  summary  process,  and 
decree  that  those  who  refused  to  offer  sacrifices,  should  forthwith  be  put  to 
death  Avith  all  manner  of  tortures.  If  this  cruel  counsel  had  prevailed,  a  very 
grievous  wound  would  unquestionably  have  been  inflicted  on  the  Christian 


Persecution  begun  A.  D.  303.  421 

cause.  But  Diocletian  could  not  be  induced  to  assent  to  it.  After  various  dis- 
cussions, it  was  determined  to  refer  tlie  very  important  matter  to  the  advice  of 
friends,  or  to  a  few  prudent  men  of  approved  fidelity.  A  few  persons,  tlicrclbre 
were  selected,  partly  from  the  jurists  and  partly  from  the  military  otlicers,  who 
were  to  judge  which  mode  of  proceeding  would  be  best  and  most  salutary  to 
the  republic.  Maximiaii,  being  exceedingly  attached  to  soldiers  and  military 
affairs,  undoubtedly  thought  military  officers  would  be  the  best  counsellors;  but 
Diocletian  had  more  confidence  in  jurists,  on  a  subject  relating  to  the  interests 
of  the  republic.  Says  Lactaniius,  (loc.  cit.  p.  945.) :  Admissi  ergo  judi-  [p.  921.] 
ces  pauci,  et  pauci  militares,  ut  dignitate  antecedebant,  interrogabantur.  But 
LactatUius,  who  often  does  injustice,  if  I  can  judge,  to  the  Emperors  that  per- 
secuted the  Christians,  misrepresents  the  design  of  Diocletian  in  referring  this 
question  to  the  judgment  of  men  of  experience  and  intelligence.  For  he  says, 
it  was  Diocletian's  custom,  Cum  malum  facere  vellet,  multos  in  consilium  advo- 
care,  ut  aliorum  culpa3  adscriberetur,quiequidipsc  deliquerat.  But  Laclantius^ 
own  statements  show,  that  this  censure  is  unjust.  For  it  is  clear,  from  the  facts 
recorded,  that  Diocletian  was  averse  from  doing  the  evil,  and  he  wished  to  hear 
the  opinion  of  eminent  men,  in  order  to  avert  from  the  Christians  much  of  the 
evil  which  his  son-in-law  was  plotting.  The  Emperor's  intentions  are  also  vin- 
dicated by  the  fact,  that  when  the  more  rigorous  course  was  approved  by  the 
arbiters  mutually  chosen,  he  was  utterly  unwilling  to  follow  it.  In  this  council 
of  friends  or  wise  men,  the  harsh  plan  of  Maximian  received  the  preference. 
For  some,  from  personal  hatred  of  the  Christians,  others  from  fear  of  offending 
Maximian,  and  others  to  gain  his  favor,  Inimicos  Deorum  et  hostes  religionum 
publicarum  toUendos  esse  censebant.  Among  the  jurists  or  judges  called  to  de- 
cide this  question,  was  Hierocles,  the  vicar-governor  of  Bithynia;  whom  Lactan- 
tius,  (loc.  cit.  p.  952.)  pronounces,  Auctorem  et  consiliarium  ad  faciendam  per. 
seeutionem  fuisse:  and  he  says,  (Instit.  divinar.  L.  v.  c.  2.  p.  417.):  Auctor  in 
primis  faciendse  persecutionis  fuit.  This  man,  afterwards  in  the  niidst  of  the 
persecution,  addressed  two  short  treatises  to  the  Christians,  whom  he  called 
(ptXaX»3-s7f)  lovers  of  truth.  And  in  these  treatises,  he  loads  with  much  abu.-e 
and  injustice  the  Christian  Scriptures,  which  he  shows  himself  to  have  read  at- 
tentively; and  Jesus  Christ,  whom  he  has  the  audacity  to  compare  with  Apol- 
lonius  Tyanaeus,  yet  without  denying  his  miracles;  and  especially  Peter  and 
Paul,  the  Apostles  of  Christ.  Lactantius,  in  the  latter  of  the  passages  just 
quoted,  states  pretty  fully  the  argument  of  this  treatise  against  the  Christians. 
This  Hierocles,  as  learned  men  have  long  agreed,  was  a  different  person  from  the 
Platonic  philosopher  of  the  same  name,  whose  respectable  Commentary  on  the 
Golden  Verses  of  Pythagoras,  has  been  often  published.  Yet,  from  the  extracts 
which  Lactantius  makes  from  his  book,  it  is  apparent,  that  he  also  was  a  fol- 
lower of  Ammonius  Saccas,  or  one  of  those  philosophers  called  the  younger 
Platonists.  For,  although  he  would  have  the  gods  to  be  worshipped,  yet  he 
makes  them  to  be  not  gods,  but  merely  the  ministers  of  the  one  supreme  God. 
Says  I/ac/a?2ims,  addressing  him:  Ademisti  Jovi  tuo  regnum,  eumque  summa 
potestate  depulsum  in  ministrorum  (Dei)  numerum  redegisti.  -  -  Allirma.s  Deos 
esse,  et  illos  tamen  subjicis  et  mancipas  ei  Deo,  cujus  religioncni  conaris  ever- 


422  Century  IV.— Section  2. 

tere.  He  had  just  before  said  ;  Assertor  Deorum,  eos  ipsoa  ad  ultimum  prodi- 
disti.  For  Hierocles,  at  the  end  of  his  book,  composed  a  splendid  eulo^jfy  on  the 
[p.  922.J  supreme  God,  in  order  to  show,  that  he  was  far  from  approving  the 
superstition  of  the  people  and  the  priests,  and  that  he  would  have  the  ancestral 
Deities  so  honored,  that  God  should  still  be  exalted  greatly  above  them  all,  and 
should  receive  the  supreme  homage.  Says  Lactanlius:  Prosecutus  es  summi 
Dei  laudcs,  quem  Regem,  quem  maximum,  quem  opificem  rerum,  quern  fontem 
bonorum,  quem  parentem  omnium,  quem  faetorem,  altoremque  viventium  con- 
fessus  es. — Epilogus  itaque  te  tuus  arguit  stuhitiae,  vanitatis;,  erroris. — When 
contemplating  this  subject,  it  appears  to  me  exceedingly  probable,  that  from  this 
Hierocles  especially,  originated  the  charge  against  the  Christians  in  the  edict  of 
Maximian,  that  they  had  changed  the  religion  taught  by  their  fathers ;  and  also 
the  project  of  burning  the  sacred  books  of  the  Christians,  against  which  he  in- 
veighs so  violently  in  his  work,  taxing  them  with  many  errors. 

Although  the  opinion  of  Maximian,  that  the  Christians  should  be  extirpat- 
ed, was  approved  by  the  arbiters  chosen  by  the  two  Emperors,  yet  Diocletian 
still  refused  his  consent.  Men,  he  said,  were  follible:  and  therefore,  that  no- 
thing might  be  done  preposterously  and  imprudently,  he  would  have  the  matter 
referred  to  the  Gods,  and  particularly  to  the  Miletian  Apollo.  And,  as  Lacian- 
tins  says,  Apollo  when  consulted,  answered,  ut  divinae  religionis  inimicus ;  that 
is,  he  took  sides  with  Maximian,  and  ordered  the  Christians  to  be  exterminated. 
Therefore,  to  satisfy  his  son-in.law  and  friends,  and  likewise  Apollo,  and  yet 
follow  his  own  timid  disposition  and  aversion  to  blood,  he  adopted  a  sort  of  mid- 
dle course  ;  viz.  he  would  allow  public  laws  to  be  enacted  against  the  Christians, 
which  he  had  before  refused  ;  but  he  would  have  the  business  accomplished  with- 
out bloodshed :  (rem  sine  sanguine  transigi  volebat.) — From  the  facts  now 
faithfully  stated,  is  it  not  evident  that  Diocletian  was  reluctantly,  and  most  un- 
willingly, brought  to  disturb  and  persecute  the  Christians?  and  that  the  cause 
of  the  many  evils  endured  by  the  Christians  for  ten  years,  was  rather  in  Maxi- 
mian, who  was  inflamed  with  superstition  and  lust  for  power,  and  was  instigat- 
ed by  the  priests  and  his  mother?  And  hence,  in  my  judgment,  large  deduc- 
tions should  be  made  from  the  reproaches  and  complaints,  which  both  the  an- 
cients and  the  moderns  have  heaped  upon  Diocletian.  I  acknowledge  thnt  he 
was  in  fault,  from  his  instability,  superstition,  and  timidity;  but  he  was  much 
less  in  fault,  than  is  commonly  supposed. 

This  long  and  cruel  persecution  commenced  in  the  month  of  February  or 
April,  A. D.  303  as  lias  been  shown  by  learned  men,  Tillemonte,  Noris,  (Histor. 
Donatistar.  P.  1.  c.  2.  Opp.  tom.  iv.  p.  9,  14,  15.)  and  many  others:  and  it  was 
introduced  by  the  destruction  of  the  spacious  Christian  temple  at  Nicomedia, 
and  the  burning  of  the  books  found  in  it.  See  Lactantius,  (de  mortibus  per- 
sequutor.  c.  12.  p.  946,  947.)  The  Emperor's  edict  was  published  the  day  fol- 
lowing. Strange  as  it  may  appear,  its  specific  injunctions  are  not  stated,  col- 
lectively and  methodically,  by  any  of  the  ancients :  and  therefore  we  collect 
them  from  diverse  sources. — I.  The  Emperor's  edict  required  all  the  sacred  edi- 
[p.  923.1  fices  of  the  Christians  to  be  levelled  with  the  ground.  See  Eusebius^ 
(Hist.  Eccles.  L.  viil  c.  2.  p.  293,  294 :  and  Oratio  in  laudem  Constant,  c.  9. 


Persecutions  Icgun  A.  D.  303.  423 

p.  629.)  It  added,  that  the  thrones  of  the  bishops  in  tliose  edifices,  nnd  the 
doors,  should  be  publicly  burned.  See  the  Gesta  purgationis  Felicis  Aptun<nu 
ni,  (apud  Steph.  Baluzium,  Miscellan.  L.  ii.  p.  84.)  :  Galatius  perrexit  ad  lo- 
cum, ubi  orationes  celebrare  (Christiani)  consueti  fuerant.  Inde  cathredram  tu- 
limus  et  epistolas  s;ilutatorias.  et  ostia  omnia  combusta  sunt,  secundum  sacrum 
firaeceptum.  Whatever  was  of  stone,  was  to  be  pulled  down  ;  and  what  wan 
of  wood  was  to  be  burned. — II.  The  decree  commanded  that  the  sacred  houVs 
should  be  delivered  up,  by  the  Christians,  and  especially  by  the  bi>hoj)S  and 
clergy,  to  the  magistrates.  See  the  Passio  S.  Felicis,  (apud  Baluz.  Miscell. 
torn.  ii.  p.  77,  78.)  :  Magnilianus  curator  dixit:  Libros  deificos  habetis?  Janua- 
rius  presbyter  respondit :  Habemus,  Magnilianus  dixit:  Date  illos  igni  aduri. 
The  same  Magnilianus  thus  addressed  Felix  the  bishop :  Da  libros  vel  membra- 
nas  qualescunque  penes  te  habes.  Felix  episcopus  dixit:  Ilabeo,  sed  non  tra- 
do  legem  Domini  mei.  Magnilianus  dixit :  Primum  est  quod  Imperalures  jusse.r- 
wn/,  quia  nihil  est  quod  loqueris.  Other  examples  may  be  seen  in  the  citations 
hereafter  made. — And  the  penalty  of  death  was  decreed,  both  against  the  m;i- 
gistrates  who  should  be  negligent  in  executing  the  decree,  and  against  the 
Christians  who  should  refuse  to  give  up  the  sacred  books.  Of  the  penalty  in- 
curred by  the  Christians  refusing  to  surrender  their  religious  books,  when  de- 
manded by  the  governors  or  their  officials,  we  shall  soon  speak  ;  at  present,  we 
speak  only  of  the  magistrates  who  were  remiss  or  lenient  in  the  requisition  of 
the  Christian  books.  Tiiat  they  were  to  be  punished  with  deaths  appears  from 
two  passages  in  Augustine,  (Breviculum  collationis  cum  Donatistis,  c.  15.  et  17. 
0pp.  torn.  ix.  p.  387.  et  390.)  One  Sccundus  had  boasted,  that  when  ordered 
by  the  magistrate  to  deliver  up  the  books,  he  declared  he  would  not.  It  was 
replied,  This  is  incredible.  For  a  magistrate  would  endanger  his  life,  if  he 
should  let  such  a  man  go  unpunished.  Secundus  Centurioniet  Beneficiario  res- 
pondit, se  omnino  non  tradere  Scripturas.  Quod  illi  auditum  quoraodo  illo  di- 
misso  renuntiare  potuerint  sine  suo  exitio  non  apparet.  Death  (exitium)  was 
therefore  the  penalty  incurred  by  a  magistrate,  who  should  hesitate  to  obey  the 
decree  of  the  Emperor.  The  second  passage  expresses  the  same  thing  more 
clearly:  Ordo  et  Curator  et  Centurio  et  Beneficiarius  ad  discrimen  capitis  per- 
venissent,  qui  Secundum  tradere  nolentem  impunituni  dimisisse  prudebantur. 
Hence  the  more  cautious  magistrates  did  not  send  their  centurions  or  other 
subordinates,  to  bring  the  sacred  books  from  the  temples  and  bishops'  houses, 
but  contrary  to  custom,  they  went  themselves  to  the  churches  and  clergymen's 
houses  ;  and  whatever  books  or  other  articles  they  found  there,  they  caused  to 
be  carefully  collected,  inventoried,  and  taken  away.  A  striking  example  of  tliis, 
we  find  in  the  Gesta  purgationisCaeciliani,(apud  Baluzium,  Mi^cell.  tom.;^p.  9i2l.] 
il  p.  92  &LC.)  For  Munatius  Felix,  a  flanien,  and  the  chief  mngistrate  and  ciira. 
tor  of  the  colony  of  the  Cirtensians,  went  in  person,  first  to  the  Christian  tem- 
ple, and  then  to  the  dwellings  of  the  bishop,  the  lectors,  the  subdeacons  and 
even  of  the  private  Christians,  and  every  where  demanded  the  books  and  pa^ 
pers:  Proferte  scripturas  legis,  et  si  quid  aliud  hie  habetis  (in  the  temple,  the 
vestments,  the  chalices,  the  lamps,  the  candlesticks,)  ut  praecepto  et  ju.ssioni 
parere  possitis.     III.  The  imperial  edict  decreed,  that  all  the  Christian  books 


424  Century  IV.— Section  2. 

given  up  or  found,  should  be  publicly  humed  in  the  forum.  Eusehius,  (Hist 
Eccles.  L.  viii.  c.  2.  p.  293,  294.  See  also  p.  318.)  Here  should  be  read  th© 
Acta  passionit?  Philippi,  episcopi  Adrianopolitani,  (apud  Mabilloniiim,  Analec- 
tor.  torn.  iv.  p.  189  (Sec.  of  the  new  edit.)  Bassus  the  governor,  there  addressea 
Philip  thus :  Legem  Imperatoris  audistis,  jubentis  nusquam  colligere  Christia- 
nos.  -  -  Vasa  ergo  quaccunque  vobiscum  sunt  aurea,  vel  argentea:  Seripturas 
etiam,  per  quas  vel  legitis,  vel  docetis,  obtutibus  nostrae  potestatis  ingerite. 
This  Bassus,  as  I  have  said  was  usual  with  the  more  cautious  magistrates,  went 
in  person  to  the  temple  of  the  Christians :  and  the  bishop  with  his  assistants 
standing  at  the  doors,  immediately  gave  up  the  vessels.  Vasa,  quae  postulas, 
mox  accipe.  Ista  contemnimus.  Non  pretioso  metallo  Deum  colimus,  sed  ti- 
more.  But  the  books  he  refused  to  give  up.  Bassus  therefore  snatched  them 
from  the  place  where  they  were  kept,  carried  them  into  the  forum,  and,  accord- 
ing to  the  Emperor's  command,  burned  them  all.  Igne  subposito,  adstantibus 
etiam  peregrinis,  civibusque  eollectis,  seripturas  omnes  divinas  in  medium  misit 
incendium. — By  the  Christian  books  ordered  to  be  burned,  the  Emperor  seema 
to  have  understood  merely  their  divine  books,  or  the  holy  scripture,  libros  dei- 
ficos,  seripturas  legis,  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  passages  just  quoted  from  Balvze^ 
or  ypapai,  as  Eusebius  calls  them.  But  as  he  knew  not  what  books  the  Chris- 
tians accounted  divine,  and  what  human,  he  used  general  terms ;  and  as  those 
who  were  entrusted  with  the  execution  of  the  law  were  equally  ignorant,  and 
supposed  that  the  Christians  accounted  all  as  divine,  that  were  religiously  kept 
either  in  the  churches  or  in  the  dwellings  of  the  bishops  and  presbyters ;  there- 
fore all  papers,  letters,  documents,  and  Acts  of  martyrs  were  indiscriminately 
drawn  from  their  repositories  and  cast  into  the  flames.  Bassus  of  Heraclea,  as 
we  have  before  seen,  demanded  of  Philip  all  the  seripturas, -per  quas  vel  legcrenty 
vel  docerent ;  and  whatever  he  found  in  the  temple,  he  ordered  to  be  burned. 
From  the  Acta  purgationis  Felicis,  (apud  Baluz.  Miscel.  tom.  ii.  p.  84.)  it  ap- 
pears that  even  the  Epistolae  Salutatoriae,  which  the  bishops  wrote  to  one  an- 
other on  various  occasions,  were  burned.  For  these  were  commonly  deposited 
in  the  churches.  And  hence  the  history  of  Christianity  suffered  an  immense 
loss  in  this  Diocletian  persecution.  For  all  that  had  come  down  from  the  ear- 
[p.  925.]  lier  ages  of  the  Church,  the  documents,  the  papers,  the  epistles,  the 
laws,  the  Acts  of  the  martyrs  and  of  councils, — from  which  the  early  history  of 
tbe  Christian  community  might  be  happily  illustrated, — aZ',  or  at  least  very  many 
of  them,  perished  in  these  commotions. — And  I  have  little  doubt,  that  the 
Hiereoles  already  mentioned,  and  such  other  philosophers  of  the  Platonic  school 
as  may  have  sitten  among  the  arbiters  chosen  by  the  two  Emperors,  instilled 
iiito  those  Emperors  this  malignant  purpose  of  destroying  by  fire  the  sacred 
books  of  the  Christians.  This  project  certainly  could  not  have  originated  from 
uninformed  men,  who  had  no  knowledge  of  Christianity,  or  such  men  as  Max- 
imian  and  his  father-in-law;  but  it  must  have  come  from  men  of  learning,  men 
acquainted  with  the  sacred  volume,  men  who  had  themselves  seen  what  is  there 
inculcated,  and  knew  from  their  own  perusal,  what  influence  the  scriptures 
have  to  fortify  the  mind  of  Christians  against  pagan  worship  and  superstition. 
And  just  such  a  man,  was  Hierocles ;  who,  in  his  work  against  the  Christians, 


Persecution  begun  A.  J).  303.  425 

as  Lactaniius  says,  (Instit.  divinar.  L.  v.  c.  12.  p.  417,  418.)  :  Adco  rnulla,  adoo 
intima  (ex  sacro  codicc)  cnumcrabat,  ut  aliiiuundo  Clnistianua  fuissc  vidcrolur. 
— IV.  Tlie  imperial  edict  decreed,  that  such  as  resolved  to  remain  Chris- 
tians,  and  refused  to  sacrifice  to  the  Gods,  should  forfeit  all  their  honors, 
offices,  rank,  and  all  civil  rights  and  privileges,  and  if  servants  they  should 
be  incapable  of  manumission.  Euscbius  has  briefly  and  imperfectly  des- 
cribed this  part  of  the  law,  (Hist.  Eecles.  L.  viii.  c.  2.  p.  294.)  He  says: 
Ut  honorali  quidem  (r«|U«s  iTrtiKnufAcvoi.  He  doubtless  means  those  in 
public  stations,  or  holding  some  office  or  post  of  honor,)  infaynia  nolarenlur 
(uTi/Jiovi.  which,  I  think,  Valesius  here  translates  in  language  too  strong.  I 
should  suppose  the  sense  to  be,  Thai  they  shall  be  divested  of  all  their  honors  and 
distinctions:)  Tods  i'i  tv  oiKirian  e'Kiv^ipias.^'ripuj-d-ai.  As  to  the  meaning  of 
these  words,  learned  men  are  not  agreed.  Henry  Valesius,  with  whom  many 
agree,  renders  them  :  Plebeii  vero  libertaie  spoliarentur.  This  very  learned  man 
supposes  the  Emperor  decreed,  that  if  men  holding  posts  of  honor  ad  distiuc- 
tion,  would  not  return  to  the  religion  of  their  ancestors,  they  should  be  reduced 
to  the  rank  of  plebeians,  and  be  deprived  of  all  honor  and  distinction  ;  but  if 
they  were  plebeians,  they  should  lose  their  freedom,  and  become  servants  or 
slaves.  But,  in  the  first  place,  the  natural  import  of  the  phrase,  oi  iv  oixirtaif, 
is  inconsistent  with  this  interpretation :  for  it  almost  invariably  denotes  servants 
and  not  plebeians.  Again,  history  is  opposed  to  it;  for  no  example  can  be  pro- 
duced of  plebeian  Christians  being  made  slaves;  while  many  examples  occur  of 
persons  retaining  their  liberty  who  merely  gave  up  the  sacred  books.  Hence, 
very  many,  and  I  go  with  them,  prefer  the  Latin  translation  of  the  passage  in 
Euscbius  by  Rujinus,  a  very  competent  authority  in  this  case.  Rujinus  renders 
it:  Si  quis  servoruyn  •permansisset  Christ  ia7ius,  liber  latem  consrqui  \_non']  posset. 
Some  punishment,  undoubtedly,  was  to  be  inHicted  on  servants  who  refused  to 
sacrifice  to  the  Gods:  yet  the  Emperor  wished  no  blood  to  be  shed  in  this 
transaction :  and  therefore  servants  could  not  be  punished,  except  by  the  loss  of 
all  prospect  of  obtaining  freedom  ;  and  no  more  grievous  punishment  [p.  026.] 
could  be  inflicted  on  servants  sighing  for  liberty.  Eitsebius  therefore  speaks 
only  of  the  penalties  decreed  by  the  Emperor  against  men  of  distinction  and 
slaves ;  of  plebeians  he  says  nothing. — Lactantius,  (de  mortibus  perse(iuutor. 
c.  13.  p.  947.)  states  more  at  large,  and  yet  not  very  distinctly,  the  penalties  of 
the  Diocletian  edict,  thus:  Postridie  prospositum  est  edictum,  quo  cavebatur,  ut 
religionis  illius  homines  cararent  omni  honore  et  dignitate,  (this  manifestly  re- 
fers exclusively  to  the  men  holding  offices  and  honors;)  tormentis  subjecti 
essent,  ex  quocunque  gradu  et  ordine  venirent,  (this  reaches  all  classes,  or  both 
gentlemen  and  plebeians ;  yet  the  former  rather  than  the  latter ;)  adversus  cos 
omnis  actio  valeret,  ipsi  non  de  injuria,  non  de  adulterio,  non  de  rebus  ablatis 
agere  possent,  (this,  I  suppose,  was  intended  for  the  plebeians.  They  might  be 
accused  by  any  body,  but  could  accuse  no  one ;)  libertatem  denique  ac  vocem 
non  haberent.  This  last  clause  I  refer,  with  Baluze,  to  servants  :  and  I  assign 
it  this  meaning.  Such  servants  as  refuse  to  abandon  the  Christian  religion  shall 
forfeit  all  hopes  of  becoming  free,  and  they  shall  not  be  allowed  rorr;«,  or  have 
a  right  to  petition  or  pray  for  liberty.— V.  Moreover,  the  decree  of  the  Emperor 


u 


426  Century  IV. — Section  2. 

severely  prohibited  all  religious  assemblages.  This  ^^  e  learn  from  the  edict  of 
the  Emperor  Maximin  in  favor  of  the  Christians,  extant  in  Eusebius,  (Hist. 
Eccles.  L.  ix.  c.  10.  p.  364.)  which  says:  Compertum  nobis  fuit,  occasione  legis 
a  Diocletiano  et  Maximiano  parentibus  nostris  latae,  ut  Christianorum  convenius 
penitus  abol  erentur,  (ras  o-uvoiTouj  rwi' ;^p/jrjaj/w;'  t^x^Ho-5-at,)  multas  con- 
cussioncs  factas.  These  words  of  Maximin  likewise  informs  us,  that  the  edict 
was  promulgated,  not  in  the  name  of  Diocletian  only,  but  in  the  name  of  both 
Diocletian  and  Maximian.  It  appears  also,  that  dealh  was  the  penalty  for  hold- 
ing religious  meetings.  There  are  extant,  in  Baluze^s  Miscellanea,  (tom.  ii.  p. 
66,  &LC.)  the  Acta  martyrura  Saturnini  Presbyter!,  Felicis,  Dativi,  and  others, 
who  were  put  to  death  for  holding  meetings  (collectas,)  or,  in  the  words  of  the 
Acta,  Quia  ex  more  dominica  sacramenta  celebraverant.  This  was  their  chief, 
nay,  their  only  crime :  Cum  Proconsuli  otTerrentur,  suggerereturque,  quod  trans- 
missi  essent  Christian!,  qui  contra  interdictum  Imperatorum  et  Csesarum  coUcc- 
tam  dominicam  celebrassent,  primum  Proconsul  Dativum  interrogat,  utrum  col- 
lectam  fecisset:  qui  se  Christianum  in  collecta  fuisse  profitebatur. — VI.  Finally, 
it  appears  from  the  edict  of  Maximin  just  quoted,  (apud  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles. 
L.  ix.  c.  10.  p.  364.)  that,  (i«  nif  KiXiua-iax,)  by  the  decree  of  the  Emperors, 
the  houses  and  grounds,  which  had  belonged  to  the  Christians,  were  confiscat- 
ed, seized  upon  by  the  cities,  and  either  sold  or  given  away. 

(2)  That  many  of  the  Christians  were  put  to  death,  immediately  after  the 
promulgation  of  the  imperial  edict,  is  placed  beyond  all  controversy  by  Euseb 
[p.  927.]  us,  Lactanlius,  and  others  of  the  ancients.  And  yet  Diocletian  had 
ordered  the  business  to  be  conducted  without  bloodshed,  and  he  would  not  al- 
low persons  to  be  punished  capitally,  who  should  refuse  to  sacrifice  to  the  gods. 
I  have  therefore  no  doubt,  that  the  persons  slain,  were  put  to  death  because 
they  would  not  surrender  the  sacred  books.  By  the  edict  of  the  Emperor,  this 
was  a  capital  offence.  In  the  Passio  Felicis  Tubizacensis,  published  by  Baluze, 
(Miscellanea,  tom.  ii.  p.  77  &c.)  the  judge  thus  addresses  Felix :  Si  Scripturaa 
deificas  (I  suppose  the  word  deijicas,  so  often  repeated  in  these  and  other  Acta^ 
was  used  in  the  very  edict  of  the  Emperors,)  tradere  nolueris,  capite  plecteris. 
Felix  episcopus  dixit:  Plus  paratus  sum  plecti  capite,  quam  libros  dominicos  sa- 
crilegio  tradere.  The  Cogniior,  on  hearing  this  reply,  and  before  pronouncing 
sentence,  ordered  the  imperial  edict  to  be  read:  Tunc  memoratus  Cognitor  jus- 
sit,  ut  sacra  Imperatorum  (edicta)  recitarentur.  Cumque  a  Vincentio  scrlba  quae 
constituta  fuerant  legerentur,  Cognitor  dixit:  Quoniara  iste  homo  tantum  in 
eadem  confessione  duravit,  secundum  praceptum  hunc  eundem  Felicem  epi?co- 
pum  gladio  animadvert!  constituo.  In  the  imperial  decree,  therefore,  it  was  ex- 
plicitly stated  and  ordered,  that  those  who  persisted  in  refusing  to  give  up  the 
sacred  books,  should  be  capitally  punished.  The  fact  is  confirmed  by  numerous 
examples  on  record,  of  persons  of  various  classes  being  tortured  and  slain,  for 
no  other  cause,  than  that  they  deemed  it  sinful  to  surrender  the  sacred  books, 
when  they  knew  they  were  to  be  burned.  Augustine  (Breviculum  collationis 
cum  Donatistis,  L.  iii.  c.  13.  p.  386.  et  c.  15.  p.  387.)  tells  us,  that  Secundus  Ti- 
gisitanus,  in  an  Epistle  to  Mensurius;  Commemorasse  multos  martyres,  qui 
cum  tradere  noluissent,  excruciati  et  occisi  sint :  and  that  Secundus  added :  Non 


Persecution  begun  A.  D.  303.  427 

quoslibet  infimos,  scd  etiatn  patrcsfamilhis,  eum  persocutoribus  rcspondlsscnt, 
habere  se  quidom  sacros  codices,  sed  omiiino  tradere  nolle,  crudcJisHiniis  tiiorti- 
bus  occisos  esse. — And  hence,  as  Augustine  reports,  from  an  Epistle  of  Mensu- 
rius  to  SecunduH,  (loe.  cit.  c.  13.  torn.  ix.  p.  386.)  some  Christians,  either  from 
weariness  of  life,  or  from  the  hope  that  their  sins  would  be  expiated  by  u  glo- 
rious  death,  voluntarily  went  before  the  magistrates,  and  declared  that  they  had 
sacred  books,  but  would  not  surrender  them :  Quidam  in  eadem  eplstola  (Mon- 
surii)  arguebantur  et  fisci  debitores,  qui  occasione  persecutionis  vel  carere  vel- 
lent  onerosa  multis  debitis  vita,  vel  purgare  se  putarent  et  quasi  abluere  facinora 
sua.  For  it  was  supposed,  that  shedding  one's  blood  for  Christ,  took  away  all 
Bins.  To  these  may  be  added  the  full  testimony  of  Optalns  Milevilanus,  who 
explicitly  says,  that  the  Traditnrs  wished  to  escape  death,  (de  schismate  Dona- 
tistarum,  L.  i.  \  13.  p.  13,  14.  edit,  du  Pin.):  Quid  commemorem  laicos, — quid 
ministros  plurimos,  quid  diaconos, — quid  presbyteros?  Ipsi  apices  et  principes 
omnium,  aliqui  episcopi,  illis  temporibus,  ut  damno  seternaj  vita3,  istius  in- 
cert(C  lucis  moras  brevissimas  cojnpararent,  instrumenta  divinte  legis  [p.  928.] 
impie  tradiderunt.  The  Emperors,  therefore,  ordered  a  severer  procedure 
against  those  who  should  refuse  to  bring  forth  and  surrender  the  sacred  books, 
than  against  those  who  should  refuse  to  sacrifice  to  the  gods.  The  latter  would 
only  forfeit  their  civil  rights  and  privileges,  but  the  former  would  forfeit  their 
lives.  And,  consequently,  it  is  not  strictly  true,  as  Lactantius  affirms,  that  Dio- 
cletian commanded  the  business  to  be  done  without  bloodshed.  Yet,  undoubt- 
edly, the  philosophers  summoned  to  the  council,  and  especially  Hierocles,  as- 
sured the  Emperor  that  if  the  sacred  books  of  Christians  were  burned,  the 
whole  Ciiristian  religion  would  fall  to  the  ground;  and  they  added,  that  the 
Christians,  if  made  liable  to  capital  punishment,  would  all  surrender  their 
books:  for  they  had  such  a  horror  of  sacrifices,  that  they  would  rather  die  than 
make  an  oblation  to  the  gods ;  but  to  deliver  up  their  sacred  books,  was  not 
prohibited  by  their  law,  and  therefore,  undoubtedly,  they  would  all  redeem  their 
lives  by  surrendering  their  books.  Influenced  by  these  arguments,  Diocletian, 
who  would  otherwise  have  commanded  the  sparing  of  blood,  permitted  the 
penalty  of  death  to  be  decreed  against  refusers  to  surrender  the  books.  But 
the  result  was  not  as  the  Emperor  anticipated:  for  multitudes,  as  we  have  seen, 
would  sooner  die  than  surrender  the  divine  books.  And  yet  many  prized  life 
more  than  the  books;  and  they  were  regarded  as  apostates,  and  were  branded 
with  the  opprobrious  name  of  Traditors.  See  Augustine,  de  baptismo  contra 
Donatistas,  (L.  vii.  c.  2.  tom.  ix.  p.  126.)  The  term,  however,  is  ambiguous, 
for  it  may  denote  simply  one  who  delivers  up  something;  or  it  may,  in  a  more 
restricted  sense,  denote  a  flagitious  betraijer.  Of  the  vast  number  of  these 
Traditors  in  Africa,  we  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  hereafter.  Out  of  Africa, 
there  arose  no  controversy  respecting  Traditors,  although  there  can  be  no  doubt, 
that  in  all  the  provinces,  there  were  persons  who  deemed  life  more  precious  than 
their  books.  And  hence  it  is  highly  probable,  that  the  oflfence  of  the  Traditors 
was  esteemed  a  lighter  matter  in  most  parts  of  the  Christian  world,  than  among 
the  Africans,  who  were  naturally  ardent. 


428  Century  IV. —Section  3. 

§  III.  First  Year  of  the  Persecution.  Occurrences  at  Nicomedia. 
New  Edicts.  The  liatrecl  of  Diodctian  against  Christians  became 
more  violent  a  little  after  the  promulgation  of  his  first  decree, 
when  two  fires  occurred  in  the  palace  at  Nicomedia ;  for  the  ene- 
mies of  Christianity  persuaded  the  credulous  and  timid  old  man 
that  the  Christians  were  the  authors  of  those  fires.  Therefore 
the  Emperor  commanded  that  the  Christians  of  Nicomedia,  of  all 
classes  and  descriptions,  should  be  jDut  to  torture  ;  and  many  were 
burned  at  the  stake  as  incendiaries.  (')  About  the  same  time,  se- 
[p.  929.]  ditions  occurred  in  Armenia  and  Syria ;  and  as  the 
enemies  of  Christianity  charged  the  blame  of  these  also  upon  the 
Christian  pastors  and  teachers,  the  emperor  issued  a  new  edict^  re- 
quiring all  bishops  and  clergymen  to  be  thrown  into  prison. 
This  decree  was  soon  afterwards  followed  by  a  third^  in  which  the 
Emperor  ordered  that  all  the  imprisoned  clergymen,  who  refused 
to  worship  the  Gods^  should  be  compelled  to  offer  sacrifices  by 
tortures  and  extreme  penalties.  For  the  timid  Emperor,  terrified 
by  the  priests  and  their  friends,  had  come  to  believe  that  neither 
he  nor  the  republic  could  be  safe  so  long  as  the  Christians  re- 
mained; and  he  hoped,  that  if  the  bishops  and  teachers  were 
subdued,  their  flocks  would  follow  their  example.  And  thus  a 
great  multitude  of  holy  and  excellent  persons,  in  all  the  provin- 
ces of  the  Koman  empire,  Avere  put  to  death  by  various  kinds  of 
the  most  cruel  executions :  and  others,  mutilated  and  deprived 
of  their  bodil}^  members,  Avere  condemned  to  the  mines.Q  Gaul 
alone  escaped  this  calamity;  for  there  Oonstantius  Chloriis,  al- 
though he  did  not  prevent  the  Christian  temples  from  being 
demolished,  forbid  the  infliction  of  personal  injuries  on  the 
Christians.^ 

(1)  Laciantius,  (de  mortibus  persequutor.  c.  14.  p.  948.)  mentions  two  con- 
flngrations  in  the  pnlace  at  Nicomedia  soon  after  the  first  edict  against  the 
Christians:  Eusebius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  viii.  c.  6.  p.  297.)  mentions  only  one; 
and  Conslantine  the  Great,  who  tells  us  he  was  in  Nicomedia  at  the  time, 
(Oratio  ad  sanctor.  coetum,  c.  25.  p.  601.)  also  mentions  but  one.  But  the  second 
fire,  which  was  fifteen  days  after  the  first,  was  early  discovered,  and  therefore, 
doubtless,  promptly  extinguished.  And  this,  I  suppose,  is  the  reason  why  Eu- 
sebius and  Constantine  take  no  notice  of  it. — But  respecting  the  first  fire,  or 
rather,  respecting  its  cause,  there  is  ground  for  no  little  dubitation.  For  the 
three  witnesses  to  the  occurrence,  entirely  disagree.  Constantine,  an  eye- 
witness, being  then  resident  at  the  court  of  Diocletian,  declares  that  the  palace 


Occurrences  at  Nicomedia.  4or) 

was  struck  by  lightning  and  tlint  the  celestial  fire  destroyed  the  Emperor's  bed. 
chamber:  and  he  adds,  that  the  Emperor  was  so  terrified  by  this  thunderclap, 
that  he  was  all  his  lite  after  afraid  lest  he  should  be  struck  with  H;Ljhiiiin<r.  As 
to  any  accusation  against  the  Christians,  as  authors  of  the  fire,  he  is  siK-nf.  Ihit 
Eusebius,  who  published  this  very  Oration  of  Constantine,  anncxin"-  it  to  his 
history,  although  he  tells  us  this  conflagration  was  attributed  to  the  Chris- 
tians, and  describes  minutely  their  sutferings  in  consequence  of  the  [p.  930.J 
charge,  yet  declares  (ii^t  oti-'  okus)  that  he  did  riot  know  the  cause  of  the  fire.  And 
lastly,  LactanLius  says,  that  Maximian  himself,  in  order  to  obtain  severer  edicts 
against  the  Christians  from  his  father-in-law,  Occultis  ministris  palatio  s;ubje- 
cissc  incendium;  and  afterwards  caused  a  rumor  among  the  vulgar,  that,  Chris- 
tianos,  consilio  cum  eunuchis  habito,  de  extinguendls  principibus  cogitasse,  et 
duos  Imperatores  domi  sua3  paene  vivos  esse  combustos.  And  he  states  that  the 
second  tire,  fifteen  days  after,  was  contrived  by  the  same  Maximian. — Now, 
which  of  these  authors  shall  we  follow?  Those  learned  men,  who  have  written 
since  Baluze  published  the  tract  of  Laclanlius,  one  and  all  place  reliance  on 
Laclantius:  but  whether,  with  due  consideration,  is  a  question.  Whence  did 
the  honest  Laclantius  learn,  that  Maximian^  by  his  servants,  fired  the  palace,  in 
order  to  excite  odium  against  the  Christians  ?  Certainly  not  from  Maximian 
himself,  nor  from  the  servants  he  employed  in  the  business.  All  who  have  any 
knowledge  of  human  affairs,  are  aware  how  studiously  powerful  men  and  princes, 
who  resort  to  such  crimes,  conceal  their  own  agency  in  them.  And  Laclantius 
himself  acknowledges,  that  the  authors  of  the  fire  were  (occulli)  concealed,  and 
never  (apparuisse)  became  known.  He  therefore  undoubtedly  derived  his  state- 
ment from  the  belief,  or  rather  from  the  suspicion  of  certain  Christians ;  who, 
knowing  that  Maximian  was  very  malignant  against  the  Christians,  suspected 
that  this  tragedy  was  artfully  contrived  by  him ;  and  what  they  thus  suspected, 
they  reported  to  their  brethren  as  a  foct.  But  that  this  suspicion  was  not  uni- 
versal, or  was  only  of  some  few  Christians,  the  silence  of  Eusebius  and  Con- 
stantine, I  think,  places  beyond  all  controversy.  For  if  it  had  been  the  common 
opinion  of  the  Nicomedian  Christians,  it  would  certainly  have  been  known  by 
Constantine  and  his  friend  Eusebius ;  and  they,  being  exceedingly  incensed 
against  Maximian,  would  certainly  not  have  omitted  a  matter  so  reproachful  to 
the  man  they  hated.  Besides,  as  on  the  authority  of  Constantine,  who  cannot 
possibly  be  discredited,  the  palace  of  Nicomedia  was  set  on  fire  by  lightnintr^  I 
do  not  see  how  Maximian  could  have  been  the  author  of  the  conflagration. 
And  lastly,  in  Lactantius  himself,  there  is  something  which  tends  to  absolve 
Maximian,  if  not  altogether,  yet  at  least  in  part.  For  it  appears  from  his 
statement,  that  the  Christians  were  not  supposed  by  Diocletian,  to  have  been 
the  authors  of  the  first  fire;  this  we  shall  soon  show  more  clearly.  But  if 
Maximian  had  fired  the  palace  by  his  servants,  in  order  to  enkindle  the  rage  of 
his  father-in-law  against  the  Christians,  he  would  undoubtedly,  immediately 
after  the  first  fire,  have  accused  the  Christians  of  it,  either  himself  or  by  others. 
It  appears,  therefore,  that  Constantine  the  Great,  the  spectator  of  this  sad  event, 
is  the  most  worthy  to  be  credited;  and  he  tells  us,  that  lightnijig  struck  tho 
palace,  and  even  the  bed-chamber  of  tho  Emperor;  and  that  he  considered  tho 


430  Century  IV.—Sectlon  3. 

[p.  931.]  fire,  as  evidence  of  the  divine  wrath  ngainst  Diocletian,  for  his  perse- 
cuting edict  against  the  Ciiristians.  And  yet  Eusehius  and  Lactaniius  exhibit 
objections  to  an  exclusive  adherence  to  the  statement  of  Constantine.  For  ihey 
inform  us  at  much  length,  thnt  severe  inquisition,  attended  by  tortures,  was  in- 
stituted against  the  authors  of  the  conflagration;  and  that  afterwards,  immense 
sufferings  were  brought  upon  the  Christians,  in  consequence  of  that  fire.  How, 
I  would  ask,  could  the  authors  of  this  occurrence  be  sought  after,  with  so  much 
eagerness  ?  or  how  could  the  Christians  be  suspected  of  firing  the  palace,  if  it 
were,  as  Constantine  states,  not  by  the  fault  of  men,  but  by  a  flash  of  lightning, 
that  the  palace  took  fire  ?  What  tyrant  is  so  senseless  and  cruel,  that  when  he 
knows  some  evil  came  upon  him,  accidentally,  or  from  natural  causes,  yet  tor- 
tures and  torments  innocent  men,  to  find  out  the  author  of  it?  Neither  the  testi- 
mony of  Constantine,  confirmed,  as  it  is,  by  that  strong  proof,  the  mental  disease 
of  Diocletian,  produced  by  the  sudden  thunder-clap,  can  be  rejected;  nor  can 
the  statements  of  Lactaniius  and  Eusehius,  also  resting  on  many  fact  proofs,  bo 
denied.  What  then  are  we  to  understand?  I,  indeed,  after  long  considering  the 
subject,  find  no  other  way  of  reconciling  the  disagreement  of  these  witnesses  of 
the  highest  credibility,  than  by  supposing  that  two  fires  broke  out  in  the  palace 
on  the  same  occasion,  the  one  caused  by  lightning,  and  the  other  by  the  villany 
or  fault  of  persons  unknown.  Nor  is  this  supposition  incredible.  For  it  might 
easily  occur,  that  while  one  part  of  the  palace  was  burning  in  consequence  of 
the  lightning,  and  all  were  rushing  forward  to  extinguish  that  fire,  some  evil 
disposed  persons  might  at  the  same  time  set  fire  to  another  part  of  it,  in  order 
to  have  a  safer  and  better  opportunity  for  plundering.  Who  does  not  know, 
that  such  villanies  at  all  times  have  occurred  among  mankind  ? 

The  first  fire  being  subdued,  the  affrighted  Emperor  commanded  the  most 
vigorous  inquisition  to  be  made  respecting  the  authors  of  so  great  a  crime' 
Says  Lactaniius,  (de  mortibus  persequutor.  c.  14.  p.  949.)  :  Ira  inflammatus  ex- 
carnificari  omnes  suos  protinus  praecepit.  Sedebat  ipse  atque  innocentes  igne 
torrebat :  item  judices  universi,  omnes  denique  qui  erant  in  palatio  magistrl,  da- 
ta potestate  torquebant.  (viz.  to  find  out  the  author  of  the  fire.)  Erant  certan- 
tes,  quis  prior  aliquid  inveniret.  Nihil  usquam  reperiebatur :  quippe  quum  fa- 
miliam  Caesaris  (i.  e.  of  Maximian,)  nemo  torqueret.  For  Lactantiiis  supposed, 
the  author  of  the  fire  was  in  the  family  or  among  the  servants  of  Maximian. 
Ffom  this  statement,  I  think,  three  things  appear.  First :  The  Christians  were 
not  supposed  to  be  the  authors  of  the  first  fire.  For  Diocletian  ordered  (omnes 
suos)  all  his  own  servants,  (the  greatest  part  of  whom,  it  is  manifest,  were  pa- 
gans,) to  be  subjected  to  torture.  But  if  the  false  rumour,  that  the  Christians 
sought  to  burn  up  the  Emperors  in  the  palace,  had  been  then  current,  manifest- 
ly not  all  the  waiters  and  servants  of  the  palace,  but  solely  the  Christians> 
would  have  been  subjected  to  the  rack. — Secondly:  The  author  of  the  fire 
[p.  932.]  was  sought  for  among  the  inmates  of  the  palace  and  the  Emperor's 
own  servants  ;  and  no  one  out  of  the  palace  was  suspected  of  the  high  crime. 
— Thirdly:  In  this  first  onset,  no  one  was  put  to  death ;  and  as  nothing  could  be 
ascertained  by  means  of  torture,  the  inquisition  after  a  short  time  was  discon- 
tinued.    To  these  conclusions,  we  may  add,  with  great  probability,  that  only 


Occurrences  at  Nicomedia.  431 

persons  of  inferior  rank,  and  especially  servants,  were  subjected  to  this  inquiai- 
tion :  this  is  easily  interred  from  the  language  of  Laclanlius. 

But  another  fire  broke  out  fifteen  days  afterwards.  And  although  it  was 
soon  extinguished,  yet  Maxlmian  fied  away,  contestans,  fugore  se,  ne  vivus  ar- 
deret.  And  then  it  was,  the  fatal  calumny  was  spread  abroad,  Christianos,  con- 
silio  cum  eunuchis  (the  eunuchs  who  were  Christians,  and  lived  in  the  palace,)  ha- 
bito,  de  extinguendis  principibus  cogitasse.  And  as  the  weak  and  credulous 
Diocletian  gave  full  credit  to  this  calumny,  he  vented  his  rage  against  the 
Christians  only,  yet  both  against  those  in  the  palace  and  those  out  of  it :  The 
worshippers  of  the  Gods  were  unmolested.  Believing  fully,  that  the  Christiana 
had  set  fire  to  the  palace,  he  first  commanded  all  persons  residing  in  it,  to  olfcr 
sacrifice  to  the  Gods;  intending  in  this  way,  to  rid  his  house  of  those  noxious 
people.  And  first  of  all,  he  required  his  daughter  Valeria,  and  his  wife  Prisca, 
sacrijicio  se  polluere.  This  mandate  shows,  that  those  women  abhorred  the  wor- 
ship of  the  Gods,  and  had  secretly  professed  the  Christian  religion.  They 
however  obeyed  the  command  of  their  father  and  husband.  But  when  the 
eunuchs  and  officers  of  the  bed-chamber,  who  were  also  Christians,  were  ad- 
dressed, a  different  scene  arose.  For  they  most  resolutely  declared,  that  the 
religion  which  they  professed,  would  not  allow  them  to  pay  honors  to  the  Gods. 
And  therefore  the  chief  of  them,  after  long  and  exquisite  tortures,  were  put  to 
death.  Laclantius  says  :  Potentissimi  quondam  eunuchi  necati,  per  quos  pala- 
tium  et  ipse  ante  constabat.  Eusebius,  (Hist.  Eecles.  L.  viii.  c.  6.  p.  296.)  more 
fully  describes  their  glorious  deaths. — Having  destroyed  those  whom  he  regard- 
ed as  his  household  enemies,  the  Emperor  next  attacked  the  Christians  of  the 
city ;  very  many  of  whom,  especially  the  clergy,  he  ordered  to  be  put  to  denth 
with  the  most  cruel  tortures,  without  any  regard  to  legal  forms  of  proceeding. 
This  he  did,  not  so  much  on  religious  grounds,  (for  he  had  not  yet  decreed  ca- 
pital punishment  against  such  as  refused  to  worship  the  Gods,)  as  because  he 
fully  believed,  what  certain  impious  men  had  told  him,  that  the  Christians  living 
without  the  palace  had  conspired  with  the  eunuchs  in  the  palace,  and  had  pro- 
duced both  the  fires.  Says  Laclanlius  :  comprehensi  presbyteri  ac  ministri  (or 
the  deacons,)  et  sine  ulla  probatione  ad  confessionem  damnati,  cum  omnibus  suis 
deducebantur  (ad  supplicium.)  Some  learned  men,  not  comprehending  the 
meaning  of  the  words  ad  confessionem  damnati,  have  supposed  the  passage  cor- 
rupted, and  have  attempted  to  amend  it.  But  the  passage  is  correct,  and  needs 
no  amendment.  The  sense  is,  that  these  Christian  priests,  when  liable  to  no 
just  suspicion,  were  nevertheless  subjected  to  torture  to  make  them  confess, 
that  either  they  or  their  brethren  and  friends  were  the  authors  of  the  [p.  933.] 
fire ;  and  when  they  would  not  so  confess,  and  nothing  could  be  drawn  from 
them  by  torture,  they  were  still  accounted  guilty,  and  were  put  to  death  in  the 
usual  manner.  The  most  distinguished  of  those  who  were  so  unjustly  slain  in 
this  storm,  was  Anthimus,  the  bishop  of  Nicomedia.  This,  Euscbius  attests, 
(loc.  cit.  p.  297.)  agreeing  perfectly  with  Lactnntius,  yet  amplifying  and  illus- 
trating his  more  concise  account.  Laclantius  thus  proceeds:  Omnis  sexus  ft 
aetatis  homines  ad  exustionem  rapti  (as  incendiaries)  :  nee  singuli  (quoniam 
tanta  erat   mult,Hudo)  sed  gregatim  circumdato  igni  ambiebantur.     Eusebius 


43^  Century  IV.— Section  3. 

adds,  that  many  men  and  women,  under  strong  excitement,  leaped  into  the  burn- 
ing  fire.  The  punishment  of  the  servants  was  lighter:  Domestici  alligatis  ad 
collum  molaribus  mergebantur. 

This  terrible  inqui^ition,  although  interwoven  with  the  persecution  raised 
by  Diocletian,  should  nevertheless  be  regarded  as  a  separate  transaction.  For 
it  was  not  properly  decreed  on  account  of  religion,  but  on  account  of  the  con- 
flagration :  neither  did  it  extend  to  the  whole  Christian  community,  but  only  to 
the  people  of  Nicomedia,  and  to  the  Emperor's  domestics.  And  hence,  after  a 
short  period,  it  ceased  altogether:  nor  did  the  Emperor  take  occasion  from  it,  to 
issue  other  and  more  severe  edicts  against  the  Christians;  as  will  appear  further 
on,  Lactantius  indeed,  after  describing  the  sufferings  and  calamities  of  the 
Christians  occasioned  by  the  conflagration,  subjoins:  Et  jam  literae  ad  Maximi- 
anum  atque  Constantium  commeavcrant,  ut  eadem  facercnt.  From  which  it 
seems  to  follow,  that  Diocletian  wished  the  other  Emperors  to  harrass  and  afflict 
the  Christians  of  their  provinces,  in  the  same  manner  that  he  had  the  Nicome- 
dians.  But  here,  as  also  in  some  other  particulars,  Lactantius  is  not  perfectly 
correct.  It  is  demonstrable,  from  the  order  of  events  in  this  persecution,  and 
from  the  authority  of  Eusebius,  that  during  this  first  year  of  these  troubles,  be- 
sides the  bishops  and  clergy,  none  but  those  who  refused  to  surrender  the  sa- 
cred books,  were  exposed  to  penalties  and  tortures.  And  the  subsequent  edicts, 
of  which  we  shall  soon  speak,  place  this  beyond  all  controversy.  And  there- 
fore the  words  of  Lactantius  above  quoted,  should  be  referred,  not  to  the  storm 
at  Nicomedia  produced  by  the  burning  of  the  palace,  but  to  things  more  remote, 
namely,  the  edicts  first  issued  by  Diocletian  and  his  son-in-law;  which  edicts 
were  undoubtedly  sent  also  to  the  other  Emperors.  It  is  evident,  that  Lactan- 
tius is  rather  unjust  towards  all  the  enemies  of  the  Christians,  and  of  course  to- 
wards Diocletian  and  Maximian;  whom  he  assails  with  bitter  reproaches,  in  a 
manner  not  very  christian. 

(2)  Like  other  weak  and  timorous  men  fond  of  ease,  Diocletian  was  easily 
thrown  into  a  violent  passion  ;  but  he  could  not  long  retain  anger.  Hence,  as 
his  fright  at  the  conflagration  subdued,  iiis  rage  ceased.  But  soon  afterwards,  a 
new  cause  of  fear  arose.  Some  persons,  I  know  not  who,  disturbed  the  peace  in 
[p.934.] Syria  and  Armenia, by  attempted  insurrections:  and  the  enemies  of  Chris- 
tianity easily  persuaded  the  Emperor,  that  the  Christians  had  excited  these  civil 
commotions.  He  therefore,  this  same  year,  A.  D.  303,  published  a  new  edict, 
not  against  the  Christians,  but  against  their  presiding  officers  and  teachers. 
For,  as  he  supposed  the  Christian  people  to  be  guided  entirely  by  their  authori- 
ty, views,  and  example,  he  ordered  all  their  teachers  of  every  grade  to  be  thrown 
into  prison  ;  anticipating,  that  the  irksomeness  and  discomforts  of  imprisonment 
would  induce  them  to  abandon  Christianity.  Says  Eusebius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L. 
riii.  c.  7.  p.  298.)  :  Cum  alii  in  Melitina,  Armeniae  rigione,  alii  in  Syria  imperi- 
am  arripere  conati  essent,  promulgatum  est  Imperatoris  edictum,  ut  omnes 
abique  ecclesiarum  antislites  in  carcerem  truderentur.  And  therefore,  in  a  short 
time,  as  Eusebius  adds :  Omnes  carceres  Episcopis,  Presbyteris,  Diaconis,  Lecto- 
ribus,  et  Exorcistis  pleni  erant,  I  may  here  remark  in  passing,  that  it  appears 
from  this  representation,  that  in  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  the  whole 


New  Edicts  against   Christians.  4:)3 

Christian  clergfy  were  distributed  into /re  classes  :it  least  in  the  East ;  or,  that 
to  the  three  ancient  orders  of  bishops,  presbyters  and  deacons,  two  others,  l,cc- 
tors  and  Exorcists,  had  been  added  in  the  preceding  eenlnry.— There  coiiUI  bo 
no  clearer  and  stronger  proof  than  this  new  decree  presents,  that  Diocletian 
long  perseverwl  in  his  purpose  of  accomplishing-  the  business  without  blood  or 
slautrhter;  and  that  the  inquisition  which  he  ordered  at  NicomcJia,  in  consc, 
quence  of  the  (ire,  did  not  extend  to  all  Christians.  The  cause  of  this  edict 
which  assailed  only  the  Christian  clergy,  was  the  rise  of  the  civil  coininotinns  in 
Armenia  and  Syria ;  as  is  manifest  from  the  de\-laration  of  Euselntis.  'I'lu-se 
commotions,  the  enemies  of  the  Christians  undoubtedly,  persuaded  the  Empe- 
ror to  believe,  originated  from  the  secret  machinations  of  the  Christian  clergy. 
But  he  found  his  expectation,  that  bonds  and  imprisonment  would  overcumo 
the  resolution  of  the  clergy,  to  be  fallacious:  for  the  majority  of  them  re- 
mained immovable  in  tlieir  religion.  And  therefore,  near  the  close  of  the  year 
as  1  suppose,  a  third  edict  was  issued  ;  according  to  which,  the  impiisoneil  cler- 
gy, if  they  would  olfer  sacrifices,  were  to  be  released  :  but  if  they  refused  to  sa- 
crifice, they  were  to  be  compelled  by  tortures  to  worship  the  Gods.  Seo 
Eiisebiiis,  (loc.  cit.  p.  298.)  From  this  edict,  began  the  blovdij  persecution.  For 
an  innumerable  multitude  of  clergymen,  through  all  the  provinces  of  the  Ron)an 
Empire,  were  subjected  to  the  most  cruel  tortures  and  suirerings,  and  many  of 
them  most  painfully  and  heroically  expired  amidst  those  tortures.  In  recount- 
ing these  events,  Eusebius  is  much  more  full  and  exnct  than  Laclantius.  In  his 
Eccles.  History,  (L.  viii.  c.  7.  &c.)  he  describes  the  cruel  sufferings  of  the 
Christians  in  Egypt,  in  Tiiebais,  in  Phcnicia,  and  in  Phrygia.  On  the  Martyrs 
q/*Pafes/me  he  has  left  us  a  separate  treatise,  annexed  to  the  Eighth  Book  of 
his  Eccles.  History,  which  is  full  of  examples  of  a  cruelty  almost  exceeding  be- 
lief. Yet  in  his  Eccles.  History,  Eusebius  seems  not  to  have  followed  the  due 
order  of  events  in  his  narrative,  but  to  have  intermingled  events  consecpjent  on 
the  fourth  edict,  with  those  which  befell  only  the  clergy,  in  consequence  [p.  935.] 
of  the  third  edict.  For  the  second  and  third  edicts  did  not  embrace  the  j>eoj>k,  but 
only  the  f.asturs  of  the  people.  And  Eusebius  himself,  (de  martyribus  Paloes- 
tinae,  c.  ii..  p.  320.)  expressly  say.s,  that  in  the  first  year  of  the  persecution,  the 
cruelty  of  the  enemies  of  the  Christians  spent  itself  upon — movsv  tiZv  tm?  Uxxxriat 
Tf  6  iS'fu)  r — only  the  rfficers  of  the  Church.  And  yet,  in  his  history,  he  relates  miwiy 
instances  of  both  men  and  women  among  the  common  people,  who,  af^er  the 
third  edict,  were  in  several  provinces  put  to  death  by  different  modes  of  lorturo 
and  execution.  And  therefore,  either  her  confounds  dates  in  his  narrative, 
which  is  the  most  probable  supposition  ;  or,  what  might  also  occur,  the  gover- 
nors and  judges  in  many  places,  went  beyond  the  limits  prescribed  in  the  edict, 
and  tortured  the  people,  either  from  superstition,  or  cruelty,  or  avarice.  This 
indeed  is  indubitable,  that  the  governors  and  magistrates  did  not  confine  their 
proceedings  within  the  limits  of  the  imperial  edicts;  but  either  from  their  sav- 
age dispositions,  or  from  a  desire  to  please  Maximian,  who,  they  well  knew, 
wished  the  Christians  exterminated,  or  from  some  other  causes,  they  proceeded 
against  the  Christians  in  most  of  the  provinces,  more  rigorously  than  they  were 
commanded  to  do.  Although  Diocletian,  in  his  first  edict,  sanctioned  the  c.ipi- 
VOL.  n.  29 


4S4:  Century  IV.— Section  3. 

tal  punishment  of  such  as  refused  to  surrender  the  sacred  books,  and  afterwards 
sliowed  himself  incensed  against  the  Nicomedian  Christians,  on  account  of  the 
fire  of  which  they  were  accused ;  yet  in  no  edict  (of  this  year,)  did  he  eou3- 
mand  those  to  be  put  to  death  who  would  not  renounce  the  Christian  religion. 
I  will  prove  this  by  Eusebius,  when  we  came  to  tiie  fourth  edict.  And  there- 
fore, the  very  considerable  number  of  Christians,  who  were  put  to  death  by  the 
magistrates  during  the  two  first  years  of  the  persecution,  perished  contrary  to 
the  will  of  the  Emperor.  And  I  wonder,  that  so  many  learned  men,  and  men 
well  read  in  ancient  history,  should  write,  that  Diocletian  condemned  to  death, 
the  Christians  who  would  not  worship  the  Gods. 

(3)  Maximianus  HercuUus,  the  other  Emperor,  who  ruled  in  Ilaly,  readily 
obeyed  the  commands  of  Diocletian  and  Maximian  (Galerius.)  But  the  other 
Cesar,  Constanliiis  Chlorus,  being  a  man  of  a  mild  disposition,  and  a  foUowei 
of  the  religion  of  nature  and  reason,  was  friendly  to  the  Christians  in  the  pro- 
vinces under  his  control,  and  aided  their  cause  so  far  as  he  could.  He  governed 
Gaul,  Spain,  and  Britain.  But  he  could  not  effect  all  he  wished,  lest  he  should 
seem  to  despise  the  authority  of  the  First  Emperor,  and  violate  the  terms  of  as- 
sociation in  the  government.  In  Spain  many  Christians  were  exposed  to  vio- 
lence, and  even  death,  under  his  dominion  ;  as  appears  from  many  testimonies  ; 
and  Eusebius,  (de  martyr.  Palasstinae  c.  Id.  p.  345.)  clearly  states  the  ftict. 
What  occurred  in  Britain,  we  are  not  informed.  But  in  Gaul,  where  Constan- 
tins  was  present  in  person,  he  caused  the  Christians  to  be  exempt  from  any 
great  evils,  and  even  to  live  quietly  and  comfortably.  If  he  had  been  able,  he 
would  also  have  spared  their  temples  and  property  :  but  something  was  to  be 
conceded  to  the  authority  of  the  Emperor,  to  the  wishes  of  the  superstitious 
populace,  and  to  the  official  vStation  of  the  magistrates  and  governors.  He 
[p.  936.]  therefore  did  not  command  the  Christian  temples  in  Gaul  to  be  demo- 
lished; yet  he  did  not  prohibit  the  magistrates  and  the  people  from  either  de- 
molishing them  or  shutting  them  up.  Says  Lactaniius,  (de  mortibus  perseq. 
c.  15.  p.  951.):  Constantius,  ne  dissentire  a  majorum  (Augustorum)  praeceptis 
videretur,  conventicula,  id  est,  parietes,  qui  restitui  poterant,  dirui  passus  est,  ve- 
rum  autem  Dei  templum.  quod  est  in  hominibus,  incolume  servavit,  Euse- 
bius states  the  same,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  viii.  c.  13.  p.  309.  and  c.  18.  p.  317.)  I 
omit  other  passages  in  which  Eusebius  praises  the  clemency  ai^d  justice  of  C(m- 
stantius.  towards  the  Christians.  But  I  suspect,  and  not  groundlessly,  that 
Eusebius  and  Lactaniius  do  not  tell  us  all,  that  Constantius  permitted  to  take 
place  in  Gaul  lest  he  should  seem  to  despise  the  edict  of  Diocletian ;  but  they 
extenuate,  as  much  as  possible,  the  injuries  which  he  suffered  to  light  upon  the 
Christians  of  his  provinces,  in  order  to  please  his  son,  the  Emperor  Constantine. 
First,  Eusebius  himself,  (de  martyr.  Pala&st.  c.  13.  p.  345.)  expressly  places,  not 
only  Spain,  but  also  Gaul,  among  those  provinces  which,  in  the  two  first  years 
of  the  persecution,  belli  furorem  expertae  sunt,  but  afterwards  obtained  peace: 
which  certainly  would  be  false,  if  only  the  sacred  edifices  were  demolished  in 
tlie  life  time  of  Constantius.  Again,  the  same  Eusebius,  (de  vita  Constant.  Lo 
1.  c.  17.  p.  416.)  states,  that  the  Christians  living  in  the  palace  of  Constantius^ 
could  freely  worship  God;  and  that  among  them  also  there  were  ^itrovpycv^ 


Fourth  Edict  of  Diocletian,  A.  D.  304.  485 

0»5u — ilie  ministers  of  God,,  i.  e.  priests  or  presbyters :  but  lie  adds,  beyond  the 
palace,  (j^a^a  roli  noWoii — among  the  common  people,)  it  was  not  allowed  even 
to  ulter  the  name  of  Christians.  Now,  if  these  things  were  so, — and  no  one  can 
well  doubt  them,  then,  certainly,  the  edicts  of  Diocletian  were  proclaimed  in 
Gaul ;  and  there  was  a  severe  prohibition  of  all  public  profession  of  Christiani- 
ty, and  of  assemblies  for  Christian  worship.  And  it  was  to  remedy  this  evil  in 
a  measure,  that  Constaniius  took  some  Christian  priests  into  his  own  palace,  so 
that  there,  and  under  these  priests,  the  Christians  might  enjoy  religious  worship 
which  ihey  could  not  have  elsewhere.  And  lastly,  the  same  edict  which  ordered 
the  temples  to  be  demolished,  also  commanded  the  sacred  books  of  Christians 
to  be  given  up  and  burned.  And  therefore  I  have  no  doubt,  that  the  sacred 
books  were  taken  by  the  magistrates  from  the  Christian  temples  in  Gaul,  and 
perhaps  they  were  here  and  there  burned.  Yet  this  one  commendation  is  due 
to  Constaniius,  that  he  forbid  the  publication  and  execution  of  those  later  edicts 
of  the  Emperor,  which  commanded  all  clergymen  to  be  imprisoned  and  then 
compelled  to  ofler  sacrifices.  In  this,  Constaniius  followed  not  only  his  own 
mild  disposition,  but  also  the  dictates  of  his  religion.  For  he  was  averse  from 
the  pagan  worship,  and  therefore  could  not,  without  feelings  of  repugnance  and 
self-condemnation,  permit  any  person  to  be  driven  by  fear  or  penalties,  to  wor- 
ship the  Gods. — Yet  the  Gauls  speak  of  some  martyrs  slain  under  Conslantius : 
but  the  accounts  we  have  of  them,  are  of  doubtful  authority. 

§  IV.  Fourth  Edict  of  Diocletian.— Maximian  Emperor  Q).  937.] 
of  the  East.  Wlicu  the  enemies  of  Christianity  found  these  laws 
against  the  Christian  pastors  and  ministers  less  effective  than 
they  anticipated,  they  induced  Diocletian,  in  the  second  year  of 
the  persecution,  A.  D.  804,  to  issue  ti  fourth  edict,,  more  cruel  than 
the  preceding,  in  which  he  required  all  Christians,  without  ex- 
ception, to  be  compelled  to  worship  the  gods,  by  all  the  methods 
of  torture  and  punishment  which  ingenuity  could  devise.  Yet, 
even  this  edict,  sanguinary  and  most  iniquitous  as  it  was,  did  not 
command  the  capital  punishment  of  the  Christians  refusing  to 
sacrifice.  But  those  governors  and  magistrates,  who  were  either 
the  slaves  of  superstition,  or  naturally  propense  to  cruelty,  or 
solicitous  to  please  Maximian,,  now  marching  with  rapid  strides 
to  supreme  power,  took  occasion  from  this  edict  to  destroy,  either 
by  protracted  tortures,  or  by  sentences  of  death,  a  great  multitude 
of  Christians  in  most  of  the  provinces.(')  The  Christian  commu- 
nity being  thus  debilitated  and  down-trodden,  Maximian  openly 
disclosed  the  designs  he  had  been  secretly  revolving.  He  com- 
pelled his  flither-in-law  Diocletian^  and  the  colleague  Emperor 
Maximianus  Ilerculiiis^  to  abdicate  their  power,  and  assumed  to 


436  Century  IV.— Section  4. 

himself  the  rank  of  Emperor  of  the  East,  leaving  the  West  under 
Constantius  Chlorus.  At  the  same  time  he  appointed  two  col- 
leagues in  the  government,  or  two  Cesars,  of  his  own  choice,  and 
entirely  devoted  to  himself,  namely,  Ilaximin,  his  sister's  son,  and 
Severus,  excluding  altogether  Constantine,  the  son  of  Constantius, 
This  revolution  in  the  government  was  advantageous  to  the 
Christians  of  the  western  provinces,  and  in  a  measure  restored 
their  peace ;  but  the  Christians  of  the  East  were  persecuted  with 
increased  violence  and  cruelty,  by  Maximian  Galerius  and  Maxi- 
min.  Ilence,  the  number  of  Martyrs  and  Confessors  in  those 
regions  was  great. Q 

(1)  The  principal  authority  for  this  new  or  fourth  edict,  issued  in  the  second 
year  of  the  persecution,  is  Euseltius,  (de  martyribus  Palaest.  c.  3.  p.  321.)  who 
says:  Secundo  anno,  Urbano  tunc  provinciam  regente,  Imperatoris  missss  sunt 
litterae,  quibus  generali  pracepto  (koS-ox/xw  TrfioTTay/uaTi)  jubebatur,  ut  omnes 
ubique  locorum  et  gentium  publice  idol  is  sacrificia  et  libationes  offerrent.  Euse- 
bins  here  mentions  only  one  Emperor;  whence  it  appears,  that  this  edict  waa 
[p.  938.]  sanctioned  by  the  authority  of  Diocletian  only;  and  this  is  confirmed 
by  a  passage  soon  to  be  adduced  from  Constanline  the  Great.  The  same  decree 
that  was  sent  to  Urbanus,  the  governor  of  Syria,  was  unquestionably  sent  to  all 
the  other  provincial  governors.  For  Eusebius  expressly  says,  it  was  a  x.a^o\ix6r 
Trpoa-rdyiuia — mandatum  generaU ;  and  that  it  embraced  all  the  provinces  of  the 
empire,  or  required  omnes  ubique  locorum  et  gentium  to  sacrifice  to  the  Gods. 
Neither  will  the  numerous  examples  of  martyrdom  in  the  Roman  provinces, 
which  are  recounted  by  Eusebius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  viii.)  and  by  the  moderns, 
TillemonL  especially,  (Meraoires,  (fce.  tome  v.)  admit  of  any  doubt  on  this  ^nh- 
ject— Eusebius  does  not  tell  us,  what  punishment  the  Emperor  decreed  for 
those  whom  no  tortures  could  induce  to  offer  sacrifices.  But  learned  men,  who 
treat  of  the  sufferings  inflicted  on  the  Christians  prior  to  the  reign  of  Conslan- 
tine  the  Great,  would  have  us  believe,  that  Diocletian  ordered  those  who  refused 
to  honor  the  Gods,  to  be  put  to  death.  And  they  probably  so  judge,  because 
they  see  that  a  great  multitude  of  Christians  of  every  class,  were  everywhere 
cruelly  slain  with  various  tortures,  after  this  fourth  edict  was  issued.  And  Eu^ 
sebius  himself  may  have  led  them  to  believe  so,  as  he,  immediately  after  men- 
tioning the  imperial  edict,  proceeds  to  state  examples  of  Christians  either  con- 
demned to  be  devoured  by  wild  beasts,  or  to  be  decapitated,  as  if  he  would 
thereby  exhibit  the  force  and  cruelty  of  the  imperial  mandate.  But  I  hare  con- 
cluded, after  attentively  considering  the  whole  subject,  that  the  edict  prescribed 
no  punishment,  and  much  less  that  of  death,  as  the  penalty  of  refusing  to  offer 
sacrifices;  and  that  the  governors  were  only  commanded,  in  general,  to  compel 
the  Christians  to  worship  the  Roman  deities  in  every  way  they  could,  and  by 
Buch  inflictions  and  tortures  as  they  might  choose.  Constantine  the  Great,  in 
his  edict  preserved  by  Eusebius^  (de  vita  Constant.  L.  ii.  c.  61.  p.  467.)  after 


Fourth  Edict  of  Diocletian,  A.  D.  304.  437 

mentioning  these  later  edicts  of  Diocletian,  and  saying  that  these  edicts,  as  it 
were  cruentis  mucronibus  scripta  esse,  describes  their  import  thus:    Toij  /« 

i'lKJt.mtii  T«»    dy^i  V  0  I  av    iii   luptrtv   KO\aTT»piuiv   (PnvcTcpci'V    cKTiivity  nai>:t>ctKiui  to 

Judicibus  praecipit,  ut  iiigenii  solertiam  ad  acerbiores  cruciatus  excogitandos  in- 
tendercnt.  That  this  description  cannot  refer  to  new  modes  of  capital  punish- 
ment, or  new  ways  of  putting  men  to  death,  which  the  governors  were  to  de- 
vise, must  be  manifest.  Neither  did  Diocletian  wish  the  Christians  to  be  slain^ 
but  to  have  them  brought  back  to  the  religion  of  their  ancestors  by  coercion 
and  force.  The  passage  must  therefore  be  understood  of  new  modes  of  torture 
and  suffering:  and  the  Emperor  would  remind  the  m.igistrates,  that  as  experi- 
ence had  shown  that  the  Christians  were  not  moved  by  the  usual  methods  of 
torture,  they  must  exert  their  ingenuily  to  devise  new  modes  of  torture,  and 
new  forms  of  suffering,  by  which  the  minds  of  these  obstinate  persons  might  be 
subdued,  and  they  be  induced  to  honor  the  gods.  And  that  this  was  the  import  of 
the  edict,  is  put  beyond  all  dispute,  by  the  .manner  of  its  execution,  ns  described 
by  Lactanlius,  a  spectator  of  it,  (Instit.  divinar.  L.  v.  c.  11.  p.  449.)  He  [p.  939.] 
represents  most  of  the  judges  as  being  careful  not  to  kill  any  of  the  Christians; 
but,  as  the  Emperor  had  directed  the  invention  of  new  modes  of  torture,  they, 
as  it  were,  vied  with  each  other  in  the  ingenuity  of  their  modes  of  compelling 
Christians  to  apostatize:  Dici  non  potest,  hujusmodi  judices  quanta  et  quam 
gravia  tormentorum  genera  excogitaverint,  ut  ad  effectum  propositi  sui  pervene- 
rint.  Hoc  autem  non  tantum  ideo  faciunt,  ut  gloriari  possint,  nullum  se  inno- 
centium  peremisse,  -  -  sed  et  invidiae  caussa,  ne  aut  ipsi  vincantur,  (namely,  by 
other  judges.  That  judge,  therefore,  who  could  not  overcome  his  Christians  by 
his  modes  of  torture,  was  considered  as  outdone  by  others.)  aut  illi  (Christiani) 
virtutis  sure  gloriam  consequantur.  Itaque  in  exeogitandis  poonarum  generibus 
nihil  aliud,  quam  victoriam,  cogitant.  Sciunt  enim  certamen  esse  illud  et  pug- 
nam.  -  -  Contendunt  igitur,  ut  vincant,  et  exquisitos  dolores  corporibus  im- 
mittunt,  et  nihil  aliud  devitant,  quam  ut  ne  torti  moriantur.  -  -  Illi  pertinaci 
8tultitic\  jubent  curam  tortis  diligenter  adhibcri,  ut  ad  alios  cruciatus  membra 
renoventur,  et  reparetur  novus  sanguis  ad  poenam.  Could  there  be  any  stronger 
proof,  than  this  testimony  of  the  very  eloquent  man  narrating  what  fell  under 
his  own  observation,  that  Diocletian  did  not  wish  the  Christians  put  to  death, 
but  or\\y  worried  ouMvith  tortures,  until  they  should  apostatize!  Whence  it 
follows,  that  he  by  no  means  decreed  the  capital  punishment  of  such  as  would 
not  sacrifice.  But  there  are  other  arguments  to  the  same  point.  In  the  Eccles. 
History  of  Eusebiiis,  (L.  ix.  c.  9.  p.  360.)  there  is  an  edict  of  Maximin  in  favor 
of  the  Christians,  which  is  of  great  weight  in  this  matter.  For,  first,  Maximin 
states  the  substance  of  the  edict  of  Diocletian  and  Maximlan  Galerius  against 
the  Christians,  precisely  in  accordance  with  our  views:  Domitii  ac  parentes  nos- 
tri,  Diocletianus  et  Maximianus,  recte  atquc  ordinc  constituerunt,  ut  quicunque 
a  Deorum  suorum  religione  descivissent,  publica  anijnadiersione  ac  supplicio  ad 
eorundem  cultum  revocarentur.  Therefore,  they  ordered  no  man  to  be  put  to 
death.  And  next,  he  tells  us,  how  the  judges  in  the  East  obeyed  the  decree: 
Ego  ven)  cum  in  Orientis  provincias  venissem,  comperi  quamplurimos  homines, 
qui  reipublicEb  usui  esse  possent,  ob  earn  quam  dixiraus  caussam  a  judicibus  in 


438  Century  IV.— Section  4. 

certa  loca  relegari.  Therefore,  in  the  East,  the  judges  merely  sent  into  exile 
those  Christians  whom  they  could  not  bring  to  apostasy  by  tortures.  Who 
does  not  see  from  this,  that  the  Emperors  did  not  decree  the  capital  punislnnent 
of  the  unyielding  Christians'?  For  if  the  persisting  Christians  were  willing  to 
die,  the  judges  who  should  only  order  them  into  exile,  would  act  contrary  to 
the  mandate  of  their  sovereigns,  and  would  incur  their  displeasure.  But  a  fine 
passage  in  Eusebius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  viii.  c.  12.  p.  306,  307.)  entirely  s^ettles 
the  point.  Having  stated  many  examples  of  Christians  most  cruelly  slain,  in 
[p.  940.]  Egypt,  Pontus,  Syria,  and  other  countries,  he  adds,  that  the  judges, 
desparing  of  effecting  anything  by  inhumanity  and  cruelty;  ad  clemenliam  et 
humanitatem  se  converlisse.  Neque  enim  fas  esse  aiebant,  ut  urbes  civium 
sanguine  contaminarentur,  -  -  sed  potius  decere,  ut  humanitas  et  beneficentia 
Imperitoriae  majestatis  in  universos  diffunderetur,  nee  posthac  nostri  capitali  sup- 
plicio  plecterentur :  Quippe  hujusmodi  poena  per  Imperitorum  indulgentiam 
{i'la  T«y  tQv  HparovvToiv  fitxav^-poTriav)  nos  liberatos  esse.  Yet  it  was  a  sorrowful 
clemency,  which  the  judges  chose  to  substitute  for  severity.  For,  omitting  ca- 
pital punishment,  they  ordered  that  the  Christians  whom  they  could  in  no  way 
induce  to  worship  the  Gods,  should  have  their  eijes  dug  out,  or  one  of  their 
legs  disabled;  and  the  innocent  and  holy  men,  thus  mutilated,  were  condemned 
to  the  mines.  Yet,  even  this  inhuman  humanity,  proves  that  the  Emperors  for- 
bid, tacitly  at  least,  the  slaughter  of  the  Christians;  and  the  judges  themselve-s 
acknowledged  it. — This  nevv  and  horrid  edict  of  Diocletian,  therefore,  in  general 
terms,  directed  the  magistrates  to  command  all  citizens  whatever,  within  their 
several  jurisdictions,  to  offer  sacrifices  to  the  Gods;  and  such  as  should  resist 
and  refuse  to  offer  sacrifices  in  the  manner  of  their  ancestors,  they  were  to  tor- 
ture with  every  species  of  suffering  and  pain,  until  they  would  do  as  the  Em- 
perors required.  Neither  the  measure  nor  the  duration  of  these  tortures  w^as 
prescribed,  nor  the  method  of  proceeding  with  those  who  resisted  these  tortures 
with  a  determined  and  invincible  resolution.  And  hence  each  of  the  judges,  ac- 
cording to  his  personal  character  and  disposition,  put  a  more  severe  or  a  more 
mild  interpretation  upon  the  Emperor's  edict:  some,  as  we  have  seen  from,  the 
decree  of  Maximin  in  Eiisebius,  only  exiled  those  they  could  not  subdue;  others, 
as  we  also  learn  from  Eusebius,  deprived  those  they  could  not  overcome,  of  a 
leg  or  an  eye;  others,  influenced  by  furious  passion,  condemned  them  eitlier  to 
the  wild  beasts,  or  to  decapitation,  or  to  other  horrid  modes  of  execution :  and 
the  most  cruel  persisted  in  torturing  the  Christians  variously,  until  they  died 
from  exhaustion.  Many,  also,  for  different  reasons,  proceeded  contrary  to  the 
will  of  the  Emperor,  and  at  once  put  to  death  the  Christians  whom  they  had 
seized.  I  will  cite  a  noticeable  passage  from  Laclantius,  (Instit.  divinar.  L.  v. 
c.  11.  p.  448.)  which  admirably  illustrates  this  subject,  and  clearly  supports  our 
views  of  the  import  of  Diocletian's  edict.  Quic  per  totum  orbera  singuli 
(judices)  gesserint,  enarrare  impossibile  est.  Qnis  enim  voluminum  numerus 
capiet  tarn  infinita,  tam  varia  genera  crudelitatis?  Accepta  enim  potestate 
(which  was  not  well  defined,)  pro  suis  moribus  quisque  sccvit.  Alii  pras  nimia 
timiditate  plus  ausi  sunt,  quam  jubebantur;  (thus  did  the  judges,  who  con- 
demned the  captives  to  die,  which  was  not  commanded :)  alii  suo  proprio  adver- 


Fourth  Edict  of  Diocletian^  A.  D.  804.  431) 

8US  justos  odio  ;  quid:itn  naturali  mentis  ferltate;  nonnulli,  ut  plaoerent,  et  hoc 
officio  viam  sibi  ad  ultiora  inunirent:  aliqui  ad  occidendiitn  pioocipiU's  [p.  941.] 
extiterunt;  siciit  unus  in  Pliryg-ia,  qui  univorsum  populuin  cum  ij)so  parilcr 
coiuentii'ulo  coiicromavit.  -  -  Illud  vero  pessimuui  genus  est.  cui  clenieuliic 
species  falsa  blanditur:  ille  gravior,  ille  saevior  est  earnit'ex,  ([ui  neniiiiern  sta- 
tuit  occiderc. 

But  wliile  it  is  certain,  that  the  governors  and  judges  most  unjustly  put  :i 
great  many  Christians  to  death  in  various  ways,  contrary  to  the  Emperors  man- 
date, it  must  also  be  ndraitted,  that  among  those  put  to  death,  there  were  not  a 
few,  who,  by  their  own  fault,  drew  upon  themselves  capital  punishment.  I  say 
nothingofLhose  who  attended  religious  meetings,  which,  from  the  commencement 
of  the  persecution,  was  severely  forbidden  :  for  these  had  some  excuse  for  their 
conduct.  But  there  were  otiiers,  who  voluntarily  presented  themselves  before 
the  judges,  professed  that  they  v»-ere  Christians,  and  most  indiscreetly  demanded 
death.  Says  Sulpitius  Seierus,  (Historia  sacra,  L.  ii.  c.  32.  p.  247.  edit.  Clerici.) 
Certatim  gloriosa  in  certamina  ruebatur,  multoque  avidius  turn  martyria  glcrio- 
sis  mortibus  quaerehantur,  quam  nunc  episcopatus  pravis  ambitionibus  adpetun- 
tur.  Sulpitius  speaks  rhetorically.  For  it  is  equally  wrong  and  contrary  to 
Christian  morality,  unnecessarily  to  seek  martyrdom,  and  to  aspire  after  a  bishojt- 
rick  from  motives  of  ambition.  That  there  were  persons  influenced  by  such  in- 
considerate zeal  as  actually  to  seek  death,  appears  from  many  examples  in 
Eusebius  and  others.  I  will  mention  one.  After  the  fourth  ediet  of  the  Em- 
peror was  brought  into  Palestine,  six  young  men  of  Gaza,  hearing  that  some 
Christians  were  to  fight  with  wild  beasts,  all  went  to  Urban  the  governor,  with 
their  hands  tied,  confessed  that  they  were  Christians,  and  boasted,  that  they 
were  not  afraid  of  the  wild  beasts.  They  were  all  put  in  prison,  and  after  a 
few  days  decapitated.  And  this  rash  conduct,  Eusebius  commends,  (de  mar- 
tyribus  Falsest,  c.  3.  p.  321.)  but  I  do  not ;  nor  did  the  laws  of  the  Church  favor 
this  class  of  people.  Is  it  at  all  strange,  that  those  who  thus  insulted  the  Em- 
peror, the  public  laws,  and  the  governors,  and  audaciously  provoked  those 
whom  Christianity  required  them  to  respect,  should  be  punished  for  their  indis- 
cretion, by  proud  men,  high  in  power,  and  ignorant  of  true  religion  ? 

(2)  I  have  before  stated,  that  Maximian  Galerius  was  induced  to  persecute 
and  oppress  the  Christians,  not  merely  by  his  superstition,  but  also  by  his  lust 
of  power.  He  coveted  supremacy  in  the  republic,  or  wished  to  secure  to  him- 
self and  friends  the  entire  Roman  Empire,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  family  of 
Constantius  Chlorus.  And  as  he  despaired  of  attaining  his  object  without  a 
civil  war  and  great  movements  of  dubious  result,  so  long  as  the  Christians,  who 
were  all  devoted  to  Constantius  and  his  son,  remained  secure  and  powerful,  he 
concluded  that  they  must  first  of  all  be  oppressed,  and  deprived  of  their  re- 
sources. That  I  am  correct  in  these  views,  is  clearly  shown,  if  I  do  not  mis- 
take, by  what  this  very  ambitious  man  contrived  and  executed,  while  the  perse- 
cution was  everywhere  raging  against  the  Christians.  He  dissembled  [p.  942.] 
his  purpose  of  subjecting  everything  to  himself  and  friends,  so  long  as  the  edicts 
against  the  Christians  were  moderate,  and  did  not  extinguish  all  hope  of  their 
return  to  prosperity.     But  after  he  had  ])revailed,  doubtless  by  various  artitieesji 


440  Century  IV.—Seciion  4. 

on  his  ftither-in-law,  in  tlie  year  304,  to  issue  the  very  distressing  edict  already 
described,  and  there  seemed  to  be  no  salvation  possible  for  the  Christians,  he 
dropped  the  mask,  and  openly  avowed  what  before  he  had  kept  concealed  in  bis 
own  breast.  In  the  hitter  part  of  the  year  304,  the  condition  of  the  Christians 
had  been  made  such,  by  the  fourth  edict  of  Diocletian,  that  they  could  attempt 
nothing  important,  and  could  not  raise  a  civil  war  in  behalf  of  Constantius  and 
his  son.  For,  all  the  provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire  were  drenched  in  Chris- 
tian blood,  except  only  Gaul,  and  even  there  the  Christians  could  hold  meetings 
only  within  the  palace.  The  temples  dedicated  to  Christ  were  every  where  pros- 
trated. Meetings  for  worship  or  other  purposes,  eould  no  longer  be  held  by 
Christians.  JMost  of  them  had  fled  the  Roman  soil,  and  taken  refuge  among  the 
barbarians,  who  received  them  kindly.  See  the  edict  of  Constantine  the  great: 
(apud  Eusebium  de  vita  Constantini  L.  ii,  c.  53.  p.  468.)  Those  unable  or  un- 
willing to  flee  the  country,  hid  themselves,  and  could  not  appear  in  public  with, 
out  imminent  peril  of  their  lives  and  estates.  Their  principal  men,  including 
the  bishops  and  ministers  of  religion,  were  either  slain,  or  maimed  and  sent  to 
the  mines,  or  mulcted  with  exile ;  so  that  the  professors  of  Christianity  were 
every  where  without  leaders  and  guides.  Their  property  both  public  and  pri- 
vate had,  for  the  most  part,  been  seized  by  the  greedy  magistrates  and  judges. 
From  a  dread  of  torture  and  protracted  sufferings,  many  had  procured  their  own 
death :  and  others,  including  not  a  few  presiding  officers  and  men  of  note  or  of 
rank  and  standing,  had  apostatized  from  Christ.  The  Christians,  who  had  in 
great  numbers  been  connected  with  the  court  of  Diocletian  or  with  the  army, 
were  all  either  put  to  death  as  culprits,  or  sent  into  exile,  or  detained  in  prisons. 
The  needy  residue,  weak  and  obscure,  and  consisting  of  persons  of  inferior 
rank  or  standing,  could  not  possibly  disturb  the  republic,  and  take  arms  in  be- 
half of  Constantius.  Therefore,  all  causes  of  fear  being  removed,  Maximian 
Galerius  freely  disclosed  his  designs,  and  made  manifest  that  he  wished  to  rula 
the  Roman  Empire  alone.  In  the  first  place,  he  constrained,  partly  by  threats, 
and  partly  by  »  rgument,  his  father-in-law  Diocletian,  to  whom  he  was  under  the 
greatest  obligations,  and  also  the  other  Augustus,  Maximian  Herculius,  on  the 
Kalends  of  May  A.  D.  305,  to  divest  themselves  of  the  purple  and  the  imperial 
dignity,  the  former  at  Nicomedia,  and  the  latter  at  Milan,  and  to  retire  to  private 
life.  By  what  method  he  eflTected  this  momentous  change,  no  one  has  told  us 
more  distinctly  and  accurately  than  Laclantius ;  (de  mortibus  persequutor.  e. 
17  &c.  p.  954  &c.)  This  being  accomplished,  he  assumed  to  himself  the  title 
of  Emperor  of  the  East,  and  left  to  Constantius  Chlorus  the  rank  of  Emperor 
[p.  943.]  ff  the  West.  He  hated  Constantius  exceedingly,  and  would  therefore 
have  gladly  deprived  him  of  both  life  and  official  powder:  but  Constantius  stood 
strong  in  the  affections  both  of  the  citizens  and  the  soldiers,  and  he  was  guard- 
ed by  the  powerful  protection  of  the  army.  And  therefore,  perceiving  that  he 
had  not  forces  adequate,  either  to  destroy  a  man  of  such  vast  power,  or  to  de- 
pose him,  Maximian  thought  best  not  only  to  bear  with  him,  but  even  to  elevate 
him  :  and  he  was  the  more  willing  to  do  so,  because  he  supposed  the  mildness  of 
Constantius  left  nothing  to  fear  from  him ;  and  moreover,  as  Constantius  was 
in  bad  health,  he  hoped  he  would  soon  be  removed  by  death.     Says  I^actantius, 


Maximian  Emperor  of  the  East,  A.  D.  305.  441 

(de  mortibus  perseq.  c,  20.  p.  361.)  :  Mnximianus,  postiiuam  sonibiis  o.\pulsi^, 
quod  voluit,  ct  fecit,  sc  j:iin  solus  toliiis  orbis  dominuni  esse  iVrcbat.  Naui  Con- 
stantium,  quamvis  piioreni  noniinari  cssut  nccesse,  contemnebat,  quod  ct  iiatura 
mitis  esset,  ct  valctudinc  corporis  impcditus.  Hunc  sporabat  brcvi  obituruin,  ut 
si  non  obisset,  vel  invitum  cxuerc  facile  videbatur.  Quid  euim  faceret,  si  a  tii- 
bus  cogcretur  imperiurn  deponere.  From  Constantius'  son  Conslanline,  afier- 
wards  styled  the  Great,  he  felt  that  more  was  to  be  feared,  he  being  a  young 
man,  and  very  highly  esteemed  by  the  people  and  the  soldiers.  But  as  he  re- 
sided at  the  Court  of  Nicomedia,  Maximian  thought  he  had  him  in  his  power, 
and  that  he  could  easily  procure  his  dealh,  either  by  assassinalion  or  by  other 
means.  He  indeed  actually  attempted  this  repeatedly,  and  especially  in  the  fol- 
lowing year,  306:  and  from  this  may  most  manifestly  be  learned  the  gi-neral 
designs  of  Maximian,  and  his  reason  for  persecuting  the  Ciiristians.  Says 
Lactaniius,  (loc.  cit.  c.  24.  p.  968.) :  Insidiis  saepe  juvenem  appeliverat,  quia 
palam  nihil  audebat,  ne  contra  se  arma  civilia,  et,  quod  maxinie  verebatur,  odia 
militum  concitaret ;  et  sub  obtentu  e.\ercitii  ct  lusus  feris  ilium  objccerat.  But 
Constanline,  perceiving  the  perfidy  and  plots  of  the  tyrant,  sought  safety  by 
flight,  and  went  to  his  father  in  Britain.  And  this  wise  step  of  the  young  man 
alone,  frustrated  all  the  plans  of  Maximian,  and  procured  for  the  Christian  re- 
ligion which  the  tyrant  sought  to  exterminate,  the  victory  over  superstition,  and 
astonishing  progress  through  the  whole  world.  The  only  benefit,  therefore, 
which  Diocletian  received  from  the  edicts  which  he  issued  at  the  instigation  of 
his  son-in-law  against  the  Christians,  was  the  loss  of  his  empire.  For  Maximi- 
an would  never  have  dared  to  assail  him  and  deprive  him  of  the  purple,  if  ho 
had  seen  him  encompassed  with  Christian  friends  and  ministers,  of  whom  Maxi- 
mian stood  in  the  greatest  fear,  and  the  armies  full  of  Christian  soldiers. — After 
gaining  the  supreme  power,  which  he  had  long  coveted,  Maximian  took  for 
himself  and  Constantius,  without  consulting  Constantius,  and  against  the  will 
of  Diocletian,  itvo  Cesars,  men  entirely  devoted  to  him  ;  the  one  was  Scverus, 
an  lUyrian,  and  distinguished  for  nothing  but  his  vices  ;  the  other  was  his  sis- 
ter's son,  Daia,  to  whom  lie  gave  the  name  of  Maximin.  The  former,  under 
Constantius,  governed  Italy,  Sicily,  and  AlViea  :  to  the  latter,  his  uncle  [p.  944.] 
committed  the  government  of  Syria  and  P^gypt. 

This  great  change  in  the  civil  government,  brought  some  relief  to  the  aflhct- 
ed  Church.  Eusebius  (de  martyr.  Pahest.  c.  13.  p.  345.)  expressly  says,  that 
the  western  provinces,  namely,  Italy,  Sicily,  Gaul,  Spain,  Mauritania  and  Africa, 
obtained  peace,  when  the  persecution  had  scarcely  continued  two  years.  Nor 
will  this  appear  strange,  if  we  consider  that  Gaul,  Spain,  and  Britain  were  go- 
verned by  Cons!antius  Chlorus,  the  friend  of  Christians,  and  a  despiser  of  the 
Gods;  and  that  Severiis,  to  whom  the  other  western  provinces,  Italy,  Sicily, 
Mauritania  and  Africa,  were  subject,  although  he  was  a  Cesar,  was  obliged  to 
respect  the  majesty  and  authority  of  the  Emperor  of  the  West.  Neither  was 
Seierus  himself  cruel ;  though  he  was  a  drunkard,  and  immoderately  addicted 
to  voluptuousness.  And  yet,  what  Eusebius  states  respecting  the  peace  of  iho 
western  provinces,  must  not  lead  us  to  suppose,  that  they  all  enjoyed  equal 
tranquility  and  happiness.     The  Christians  inhabiting  the  provinces  under  the 


442  Century  IV.—Section  4. 

immediate  government  of  Constantius,  namely,  Spain,  Gaul,  and  Britain,  were 
undoubtedly,  either  by  his  command  or  with  his  consent,  not  only  freed  from 
tiie  peril  of  their  lives  and  estates,  but  also  allowed  to  hold  religious  meetings, 
and  to  rebuild  their  prostrate  temples.  That  it  was  so  in  Gaul,  is  certain.  For, 
as  it  has  been  well  ascertained  that  in  Gaul  no  violence  had  been  done  to  their 
persons,  but  only  to  their  sacred  edifices,  the  peace  which  Eusehius  tells  us  was 
restored  to  the  Gauls,  can  be  understood  only  as  affording  them  full  liberty 
from  the  Emperor,  of  resuming  their  suspended  meetings,  and  rebiiiUliiig  their 
eacred  edifices.  In  Spain,  where  the  edicts  of  Diocletian  had  been  more  effec- 
tive than  in  Gaul,  and  where  many  Christians  had  been  tortured  and  !^lain,  the 
same  happy  state  was  not  produced  except  in  part;  as  will  soon  be  shown. 
Yet  there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  here  also,  after  Constantius  attained  the  rank  of 
Augustus  and  Emperor  of  the  West,  no  Christian  was  molested  on  accout  of 
his  religion;  and  the  bishops  and  others  who  had  been  imprisoned  were  set  at 
liberty.  The  Spaniards,  though  too  eager  for  swelling  the  number  of  their 
martyrs,  yet  acknowledge  that,  in  the  third  and  following  years  of  the  persecu- 
tion, no  person  in  their  country  suffered  death  for  Christ.  And  this  is  put 
beyond  controversy,  by  the  list  of  Spanish  martyrs  compiled  by  John  de 
Ferreras,  (Histoire  generale  d'Espagne,  tom.  1.  p.  303,  &c.)  for  the  list  termi- 
nates in  the  second  year  of  the  persecution. — In  the  provinces  governed  by 
Severus  the  Cesar,  the  state  of  the  Christians  was  less  happy.  Penalties,  tor- 
tures and  capital  executions  had  indeed  ceased,  and  private  meetings  were  tole- 
rated, and  likewise  bishops;  but  Christian  temples,  and  the  liberty  of  meeting 
[p.  945.]  publicly  for  worship,  were  by  no  means  allowed.  I  suppose,  this  may 
be  inferred  from  the  example  of  Africa:  for  undoubtedly,  the  same  state  of 
things  existed  in  the  other  provinces  governed  by  Severus,  as  in  this.  Opiatus 
Milevilanus,  (de  schismate  Donatistar.  L.  1.  c.  14.  p.  14.)  states,  that  a  sort  of 
council  of  bishops  was  held,  apud  Cirtam  civitatem,  in  domo  Urbani  Carisi,  post 
persecutionem  :  and,  that  the  meeting  of  this  council  was  early  in  the  Spring  of 
the  year  305,  is  proved  by  unquestionable  documents,  and  has  long  been  de- 
monstrated by  learned  men.  And  therefore,  at  the  time  of  this  council,  near 
the  beginning  of  the  third  year  of  the  persecution,  the  war  upon  Christians  had 
terminated  in  the  province  of  Africa.  But,  that  perfect  peace  was  not  yet  re- 
stored there,  Opiatus  shows  in  the  same  passage.  For  he  says,  that  the  bishops 
met  in  a  private  dwelling,  quia  basilicae  necdum  fuerant  restitutae.  And  a  little 
after,  (c.  16.  p,  17.)  he  expressly  states,  that  it  was  Maocentius,  who  at  last  gave 
perfect  tranquility  to  the  African  church  ;  and  this  could  not  have  occurred  be- 
fore the  year  307:  Tempestas  persecutionis  peracta  et  detinita  est.  Jubente 
Deo,  indulgentiam  mittente  Maxentio,  Christianis  libertas  est  restituta.  The 
persecution  therefore,  in  a  measure  ceased,  in  the  province  of  Africa,  after  the 
political  changes  we  have  described :  The  refugees  returned  to  their  country  ; 
the  bishops  could  meet  and  deliberate  on  religious  matters,  without  danger  of 
imprisonment  or  any  punishment ;  the  offering  of  sacrifices  was  no  longer  re- 
quired ;  and  those  who  would  not  worship  the  Gods,  were  not  prosecuted  as 
culprits.  And  yet,  it  was  after  this,  that,  Indulgentiam  mittente  Maxentioy 
Christianis  libertas  est  restituta ;  that  is,  they  might  not  rebuild  their  lemples» 


Max'imlan  Emperor  of  the  East,  A.  D.  305.  443 

and  they  could  not  optMiIy  meet  toorether  in  public  edifices  for  the  worship  of 
God.  Ju  short,  Severus  truckled,  lest  he  should  .-ippoar  to  disregard  tlie  will  of 
Conslanlius,  by  whose  authority  he  reigned  :  and  he  did  not  order  the  Christiana 
to  be  molested,  and  yet  he  did  not  revoke  the  previous  laws  against  them,  nor 
suffer  them  openly  to  profess  their  religion. 

But  in  the  eastern  provinces,  where  Maximian  Galerius  with  Maximin^ 
reigned,  the  calamities  of  the  Christians  became  more  grievous.  For  Maximian 
enacted  far  more  atrocious  laws  against  the  Christians  than  the  former  edicts, 
and  commanded  that  all,  who  could  not  be  forced  by  repeated  tortures  to  olVer 
sacrifices,  should  be  burned  to  death  in  slow  fires.  LactaiUius  speaks  of  these 
iaw.--,(de  mortibus  persequutor.  c.  21.  p.  964.)  :  Dignitatem  non  habentibus,  pa}na 
ignis  fuit.  Id  e.xitii  primo  adversus  Christianos  permiserat,  dalis  legibus,  ut  post 
tormenta  damnali  (that  is,  that  such  as  could  not  be  constrained  by  tortures  to 
forsake  Christ,  should  be  condemned,  and)  hntis  ignibus  exurerenlur.  This  ter- 
rible punishment  is  eloquently  described  in  this  passage,  by  Lactantius.  And 
he  closes  his  account  of  it  by  saying,  that  the  bodies  when  roasted  by  the  slow 
fires, were  again  burned,  and:  Ossa  lecta  et  in  pulverem  comminuta,  in  flumina 
et  mare  jactata  fuisse.  The  testimony  of  Lactantius  is  confirmed  by  [p.  946.] 
Grtgory  of  Nyssa,  (Orat.  de  S.  Theodoro  martyre,  tom.  iii.  p.  581.)  lie  expli- 
citly says,  that  a  decree  was  issued  by  Maximian  and  Maxentius,  that  such  as 
would  not  renounce  Christ,  should  be  put  to  death:  'Ex  S'iyim.aTOi  Qioya^ov^ 

irdj    X/J/iTTtaj/of    wXav'/STO    Tea     S'u(r<j-i&i'i     yfaUfxari  Kai  Trpdi   ^avarov  tiyira.      Impio 

decreto  sancitum  erat,  ut  quicunque  Christianua  esset  irapio  script6  exagitare- 
tur  et  ad  mortem  duceretur.  What  Gregory  calls  J'ua-a-t/kU  ypdjufjia,  as  appears 
from  that  which  is  added,  was  a  slip  of  paper  fastened  to  the  forehead  of  the 
condemned  Christians,  on  which  was  written  the  cause  of  their  execution, 
doubtless  in  ignominious  terms.  Gregory  does  not  state  the  kind  of  death 
inflicted  :  but  the  Theodorus,  whose  history  he  recites,  after  long  continued  and 
extreme  tortures,  was  cast  into  a  fire:  which  goes  to  show,  that  the  law  of 
Maximian  mentioned  by  Lactantius,  was  enforced  also  in  Pontus.  And  yet, 
that  the  procedure  against  the  Christians  was  not  in  accordance  with  this  Jaw, 
in  all  the  provinces,  appears  from  the  examples  in  Eusebius  and  other.**,  of 
martyrs  who  perished  by  various  modes  of  execution.  Perhaps,  tlierefore,  iu 
certain  provinces,  for  instance,  Asia  Minor,  Pontus,  &lc.  the  persevering  Chris- 
tians, by  order  of  the  Emperor,  were  consumed  in  a  slow  fire  ;  but  in  general, 
only  death  was  decreed  against  the  unyielding  Christians,  while  the  kind  oi 
death  was  left  to  the  choice  of  the  magistrates.  This  conjecture,  however,  I  fina 
to  be  unnecessary,  on  reviewing  the  statement  of  Lactantius.  For  he  docs  not 
say,  that  execution  by  burning,  was  prescribed,  but  only  permitted  by  the  Empe- 
ror. The  law  therefore,  only  in  general,  ordered  recusant  Christians  to  be  put 
to  death,  but  left  the  judges  free  to  burn  them,  or  to  execute  them  in  some  other 
manner. 

Maximin, who  held  Syria  and  Egypf,nt  first  professed  great  lenity  towards 
the  Christians.  For,  perceiving  that  many  of  those  who  refused  to  .s.icrifice  to 
the  Gods  in  the  East,  had  been  exiled  by  the  magistrates,  he  commanded  the 
judges  not  to  punish  any  of  the  Christian.s,  nor  to  send  them  i:ito  exih',  but  ru- 


444  Century  IV. — Section  5. 

ther  to  endeavor  to  gain  tho.m  over  to  the  worship  of  the  Gods  by  blandish, 
nients  and  exhortations,  without  violence  or  terror.  This,  he  himself  states  in 
his  edict  preserved  by  Eusehius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  ix.  c.  9.  p.  360.)  And  I  sup- 
pose  w'i  may  believe  him,  although  some  learned  men  think  he  speaks  falsely. 
For  Eusebius,  after  reciting  the  edict  containing  these  declaraticms,  adds,  that 
the  Christians  would  not  avail  themselves  of  the  advantages  offered  them  in  the 
edict ;  Quod  jam  antea  post  pacera  Christianis  similiter  indultam,  versutiam  ac 
perfidiam  suam  ostendisset.  Thus  Eusebius  admits,  that  Maximin  for  a  time 
showed  himself  mild  and  placable  towards  the  Christians,  and  allowed  them  to 
live  in  peace ;  yet  he  adds,  that  this  kind  treatment  was  not  permanent.  The 
insidious  or  perfidious  peace  here  referred  to,  was  undoubtedly  that  peace  which 
is  mentioned  in  the  edict.  But,  not  long  afterwards,  either  from  his  own  super- 
[p.  947.]  stition  which  was  very  great,  or  excited  by  the  authority  and  influence 
of  his  uncle,  or  lastly,  from  discovering  the  little  success  of  the  lenity  he  had 
shown,  Maximin  assailed  the  Christians  everywhere,  with  such  fury,  that  he 
seemed  to  exceed  all  their  other  persecutors  in  cruelty.  Eusebius,  (de  martyr. 
Pala^st.  c.  4.  p.  323,  324.)  tells  us,  that  this  new  or  second  assault  upon  the 
Christians  by  this  Cesar,  commenced  in  the  third  year  of  the  Diocletian  perse- 
cution. He  sent  forth  edicts,  through  all  the  provinces  under  him,  commanding 
the  magistrates  to  compel  all  the  citizens,  without  exception,  to  offer  sacrifices. 
And  thereupon,  the  judges,  dispatching  criers  throughout  the  cities,  summoned 
all  heads  of  families  to  come  to  the  temples,  and  obey  the  impeiatorial  mandate: 
and  those  who  refused  were  stretched  upon  the  rack,  and  at  last,  if  they  would 
not  yield,  were  put  to  death  by  various  modes  of  execution.  The  most  sicken- 
ing examples  are  described  by  Eusebius.  See  his  Eccles.  Hist.  (L.  viii.  c.  14. 
p.  31 1,  312.  L.  ix.  c.  2.  3.  4.  p.  349,  &c.)  and  his  tract  on  the  Martyrs  of  Pales- 
tine, (c.  4.  p.  322.)  also  Laclantius,  (de  mortibus  persequutor.  c.  36.  p.  987.  and 
c.  38.  p.  990.) 

§  V.  Civil  wars,  and  state  of  Christians,  from  A.  D.  30G  to 
A.  D.  311.  While  Maximian  Galerius^  by  the  slaughter  and  des- 
truction of  the  Christians  and  other  tyrannical  arts,  was  seeking 
to  obtain  for  himself  and  son-in-law  the  supreme  power  over  the 
whole  empire,  divine  Providence  suddenly  disturbed  all  his  co- 
gitations and  all  his  concealed  plans.  For  in  the  year  306  Con- 
stantius  Chlorus,  his  colleague  Emperor,  whose  death  he  had  long 
anticipated,  died  in  Britain,  having  by  his  will  appointed,  as  the 
heir  to  his  empire,  Constaniine^  his  son  ;  the  very  man  of  whom 
Maximian  stood  most  in  fear  :  and  the  soldiers,  immediately  on 
the  death  of  the  father,  proclaimed  the  son  Augustus  and  Empe- 
ror. To  this  adverse  occurrence  Maximian  found  it  necessary  to 
submit ;  but  he  craftily  sought  to  modify  it  somewhat,  that  it 
might  produce  the  less  harm.  He  unwillingly  conceded  to  Con- 
stantine  the  lowest  place  among  the  Sovereigns  of  the  Empire, 


Events,  A.  D.   30G-311.  445 

wiili  tlic  title  of  Cesar:  and  at  the  same  time  lie  raised  Severus, 
previously  a  Cesar,  to  the  rank  of  an  Augustus  or  Knipcror,  tlius 
curtailing  the  power  of  Constantine.  lUit  the  obstruction  which 
human  sagacity  opposed  to  the  rising  power  of  Comtantinc^  tho 
current  of  events  soon  prostrated.  Maxcntius^  the  son-in-law  of 
Maximian  Galcrius,  and  the  son  oi  Maximian  Ilercul'Lus,  indignant 
that  /Sevcrus  should  be  preferred  before  him,  assumed  to  himself 
the  rank  of  Kmperor,  and  took  for  a  colleague  his  own  father, 
•whom  Maximian  Gakrius  had  deprived  of  empire.  And  [p.  948.] 
hence  arose,  in  the  Roman  world,  very  great  commotions  and 
most  destructive  civil  wars;  in  which,  fortune  so  favored  Con- 
sianUne^  that  he  obtained,  contrary  to  the  calculations  and  tho 
will  of  his  enemy  Maximian,  the  rank  of  Augustus  and  hmpe- 
ror.  Amidst  these  civil  commotions,  the  Christians  experienced 
various  fortune,  especially  in  the  countries  of  the  East :  for  the 
servants  of  Christ  in  the  western  provinces,  if  we  except  those  of 
Africa  and  Italy,  felt  none  of  the  troubles  of  those  tempestuous 
times.  For  those  who  contended  for  political  power,  according 
as  they  supposed  the  Christians  might  aid  or  thwart  their  wishes 
and  interests,  showed  themselves  either  friendly  or  hostile  to 
them.(')  This  dubious  and  fluctuating  state  of  things,  Maximian 
Galeiius,  the  author  of  so  great  evils  and  sufferings  to  the  Chris- 
tians, himself  at  length  terminated.  For  while  laboring  under  a 
long  continued  and  distressing  disease,  previous  to  his  death,  in 
the  year  811,  he  issued  a  public  edict,  restoring  the  Christians  to 
their  ancient  tranquillity.(^) 

(1)  The  events,  both  prosperous  and  adverse  to  the  church,  wliith  occurred 
from  the  year  300,  when  Constanlius  Clilorus  died  in  Britain,  to  the  year  311, 
when  the  dying  Maximian  Galerius  gave  petLce  to  the  Christians,  cannot  bo 
correctly  understood  and  appreciated  without  a  knowledge  of  the  great  jioliti- 
cal  changes  during  that  period.  Fur  these  changes,  if  I  do  not  wholly  misjudge, 
exhibit  the  causes  both  of  the  good  and  the  ill  fortune  of  the  christian  com- 
munity :  for  so  great  was  the  multitude  of  Christians,  who  increased  even 
amid  the  calamities  they  endured,  that  it  would  be  readily  perceived  thnt  tho 
party,  to  which  they  should  adhere  and  afford  aid  and  assistnnce,  would  hnvo 
the  superiority.  And  hence,  those  who  were  eager  to  reign,  either  oppressed 
and  persecuted  the  (Christians,  whom  they  feared,  or  courted,  sincerely  or  feign- 
edly,  their  favor.  Maximian  Galerius,  who  very  manifestly  wished  to  engross 
to  himself  and  friends  the  whole  Roman  empire,  to  tiie  exclusion  of  the  family 
of  Constanlius  Chlorus,  endeavored  to  oppress  the  Ciiristinns,  who  were  devot- 
ed to  Constantine  and  iiis  son,  lest  they  sliould  thwart  his  designs.     And  h« 


446  Century  IV. — Section  5. 

would  doubtless  have  attained  his  wishes,  if  Constantine  had  not  eluded  his 
repeated  attempts  on  his  life,  by  flying  to  his  father  in  Britain.  Maximian  had 
to  dissemble  his  chagrin  at  this  unexpected  flight ;  but  being  sovereign  of  the 
greatest  part  of  the  Roman  empire,  he  hoped  he  should  be  able,  without  much 
difficulty,  to  conquer  the  young  man  when  bereft  of  his  father,  if,  without  his 
consent,  he  should  arrogate  to  iiimself  sovereign  power.  He  undoubtedly  rea- 
soned  at  that  time,  as  Lnclantius  says  he  did  when  he  granted  the  imperial  pur-**^ 
[p.  949.]  pie  to  Constanlius  Chlorus,  (de  mortibus  persequutor.  c.  20.  p.  962.)  : 
Quid  faciei,  si  a  tribus  cogelur  imperium  deponere  1  And  yet  he  did  not  so 
rely  on  this  expectation,  as  to  neglect  other  methods  of  removing  the  impending 
danger.  For  he  tried,  with  blandishments,  to  entice  Constantine  out  of  Britain, 
and  allure  him  to  his  court.  Says  Lactantius,  (loc.  cit.  c.24.  p.  9G8.)  :  Qui  (Constan- 
tius  Chlorus)  cum  graviter  (morbo)  laboraret,  miserat  (Maximianus)  litteras,  ut 
filium  suum  Constantinum  remitteret  sibi  videndum,  quem  jamdudum  repetie- 
rat.  But  he  could  not  persuade  either  the  father  or  the  son,  to  comply  with  his 
request.  And  the  death  of  Constantius,  which  occurred  soon  after,  in  the  year 
306,  frustrated  all  his  efforts.  For,  as  we  are  told  by  very  credible  writers, 
(Libanius,  Eusebius,  Julian,  and  others,)  Constanlius,  by  his  last  will  and  tes- 
tament, transferred  to  his  son,  as  his  patrimony,  all  the  provinces  which  he  had 
governed  while  living  :  and  the  soldiers,  having  a  knowledge  of  this  will,  imme- 
diately after  the  death  of  Constantius,  proclaimed  Constantine  both  Emperor 
and  Augustus.  Nothing  could  have  occurred  more  disagreeable  to  Maximian. 
But,  as  he  could  foresee  that  a  tedious  and  hazardous  civil  war  would  arise,  if 
he  should  altogether  set  aside  the  decision  of  the  soldiers,  he  concluded  to  yield 
to  necessity,  and  to  correct  the  evils  which  time  might  bring  forth,  by  iiis  pru- 
dence. He,  therefore,  took  a  sort  of  middle  course,  which  had  some  show  of 
equity.  He  assigned  to  Constantine  his  father's  provinces,  Gaul,  Spain  and 
Britain,  with  the  rank  of  the  fourth  among  the  Sovereigns,  and  the  title  of  Ce- 
sar.  And  Constantine,  a  sagacious  young  man,  and  equally  afraid  of  a  civil 
war,  contented  himself  with  the  constrained  liberality  of  his  enemy.  But,  that 
Constantine  might  not  be  equal  to  his  father  in  power  and  resources,  Maximian 
assumed  to  himself  for  colleague,  the  man  who  was  entirely  under  his  control, 
Severus,  hitherto  the  administrator  in  Italy  and  Africa  with  the  title  of  Cesar, 
and  made  him  Emperor  and  Augustus,  in  place  of  the  deceased  Constantius. 
Severus  had  previously  governed  Italy  and  Africa,  not  independently,  but  in 
subordination  to  Constanlius :  which  had  been  very  advantageous  to  the  Chris- 
ti  in>^  living  under  his  jurisdiction.  For  he  did  not  dare  to  disquiet  those,  to 
whom  the  Emperor  of  the  West,  Constantius,  gave  his  protection.  He  now 
received,  with  the  honor  of  Emperor,  the  suj^reme  power  over  Italy  and  Africa: 
and  from  these  provinces,  if  Maximian  should  so  order,  war  might  easily  be 
earied  into  Spain  and  Gaul,  where  Constantine  ruled.  The  new  arrangement  of 
the  Roman  government  was,  therefore,  wisely  contrived  to  hold  Constantine  in 
check,  and  if  necessary,  to  subdue  him  by  war.  But,  contrary  to  all  expecta- 
tion, Maximian  himself  was  caught  by  those  very  snares,  which  he  had  laid  for 
Constantine.  There  was  then  living  as  a  private  citizen,  on  a  farm  in  the  vici- 
nity of  Rome,  Maxentius,  the  son-in-law  of  Maximian  Galei'lus,  and  the  son  of 


PoUtkal  Events,  A.  D.  800-341.  447 

tliat  Maximian  Herculius,  who  had  unwillingly  jibdicated  the  empire,  at  the 
same  time  wiih  Diocletian.  This  Maxenliiis,  a  very  proud  man,  was  indignant 
that  Constanlinc  and  Sevcrus  should  be  preferred  before  him  ;  and  [p.  950.1 
therefore,  raising  a  sedition  at  Rome  and  in  Italy,  lie  not  only  assumed  to  him- 
self the  rank  of  Emperor  and  Augustus,  but  likewise  persuaded  his  father, 
Maximius  Herculius,  again  to  seize  the  helm  of  government.  There  were, 
therefore,  at  the  close  of  the  year  306, /owr  Avgusli,  three  in  Italy  and  one  in 
the  East;  and  two  Ccsars,  the  one  in  Gaul,  Constanline,  the  other  in  the  East, 
Maxhnin.  The  next  yenr,  307,  Maximian  Galerius  sent  Severus,  at  the  head 
of  a  numerous  and  powerful  army,  against  the  new  Emperors  in  Italy.  But 
Serei-us  was  unsuccessful,  and,  being  captured  by  Maximian  Herculius,  wiXH  in- 
duced to  destroy  his  own  life.  Maximian  Galerius  was  enraged,  but  not  dis- 
couraged, by  this  victory.  Herculius  therefore,  foreseeing  that  Galerius  would 
•soon  appear  in  Italy,  at  the  head  of  a  fresh  army,  to  avenge  the  death  of  his 
friend  Severus,  went  hastily  into  Gaul  to  Constanline  the  Cesar,  and  offered  him 
his  daughter  Fausta,  and  the  rank  of  Emperor  and  Augustus,  if  he  would  enter 
into  alliance  with  him.  Constanline  consented,  married  Fausta,  and  exchanged 
the  title  of  Cesar  for  that  of  Emperor.  Again,  therefore,  there  were  four  Em- 
perors presiding  over  the  Roman  commonwealth,  three  in  the  West,  and  one  in 
the  East:  and  but  one  Cesar,  namely  Maximin,  While  Herculius  was  in  Gaul, 
Maximian  Ga'erius  arrived  in  Italy  with  his  army  ;  but  he  could  neither  take 
Rome,  nor  induce  his  son-in-law  Maxentius,  to  receive  the  purple  and  the  impe- 
rial dignity  from  his  hand.  He  therefore  returned  to  the  East,  with  ignominy, 
and  not  without  great  peril  to  his  life  and  fortune.  After  the  departure  of  Max- 
imian  Galerius,  Herculius  returned  to  Rome:  and,  as  his  son  would  not  be  obe- 
dient to  him,  he  attempted  to  expel  him  from  the  throne.  But  he  was  unsuc- 
cessful, for  the  soldiers  fought  in  defence  of  Maxenlius :  and  therefore,  leaving 
Italy,  Herculius  fled  first  to  his  son-in-law  Constanline  in  Gaul,  and  soon  after- 
wards to  his  enemy  Maximian  Galerius,  at  that  time  in  Dalmatia,  In  this  very 
difficult  posture  of  public  affairs,  Maximian  Galerius,  who  was  very  corpulent, 
and  of  course  sluggish,  perceiving  his  need  of  the  aid  of  some  active  and  ener- 
getic man,  beloved  by  the  soldiers,  and  competent  to  meet  Maxculius  in  the 
field  and  restore  the  republic  to  tranquillity  ;  created  his  intimate  friend  Licinius, 
a  man  not  distinguished  for  birth  or  virtue,  but  a  good  soldier,  and  in  great 
favor  with  the  soldiers,  Emperor  and  Augustus.  But  tiiis  remedy,  which  the 
Emperor  devised  for  existing  evils,  most  unfortunately  only  produced  new  evils. 
For,  Maximin,  his  sister's  son,  who  had  hitherto  governed  the  East  wit>.  the 
title  of  Cesar,  when  informed  that  Licinius  was  promoted  to  the  rank  of  Em- 
peror, was  indignant,  and  the  next  year,  308,  with  the  consent  of  his  soldiers, 
he  assumed  the  same  rank  :  and  to  prevent  the  rise  of  a  new  war,  Maximian 
Galerius  deemed  it  necessary  to  sanction  this  rash  act  of  Maximin.  [p.  951.] 
Therefore, in  the  year  308,  the  Roman  empire  had  six  Sovereigns;  and  a  seventh 
appeared  the  same  year  in  Africa,  in  the  person  o^  Alexander ;  but  his  reign  was 
not  long.  During  all  these  changes  and  commotions,  Constanline  in  Gaul, cau- 
tious and  provident,  was  a  quiet  spectator,  his  only  aims  being,  to  render  the 
provinces  he  governed  tranquil  and  secure  against  the  incursions  of  the  adjacent 


448  Century  IV. — Section  5. 

barbarians,  and  to  strengthen  his  power  by  tlie  attachment  of  his  people  to  him. 
In  the  meantime,  his  falher-in-hiw  /lerculius,  returned  from  the  East  to  Gaul, 
and  hiying  aside  the  purple  and  the  title  of  Empeor,  pretended  to  be  resolved 
to  spend  the  remainder  of  his  life  in  quietude.  Conslanline  put  confidence  in 
the  perfidious  man,  who  all  the  while  was  plotting  another  nefarious  project. 
Though  an  old  man,  he  was  inflamed  beyond  measure  with  the  lust  of  domini- 
on;  and  as  he  saw  every  avenue  to  the  supreme  power  closed  against  him,  ho 
contemplated  the  dethronement  of  his  son-in-law,  that  he  might  reign  in  his 
place.  He  therefore  made  war  upon  Conslantine,  was  vanquished,  and  for  a  time 
feigned  penitence  and  great  moderation;  but  in  the  year  310,  he  returned  to  his 
old  habils,  and  attempted  to  murder  Conslanline  in  his  bed-chamber;  and  being 
convicted  of  this  crime,  by  order  of  his  son-in-law,  he  hung  himself  in  prison. 
While  these  events  were  passing  in  Gaul,  Maximian  Galerius  in  the  East,  was 
preparing  for  w'ar  against  Maxentius ;  and,  to  raise  funds,  he  imposed  very  hea- 
vy burdens  upon  the  citizens.  But  in  the  midst  of  his  great  enterprises,  and 
while  every  where  oppressing  the  Christians,  whom  he  considered  as  the  princi. 
pal  obstacle  to  his  success,  he  was  attiicked  by  a  dreadful  disease  in  the  year 
310,  and  tiie  next  year,  311,  cxiiausted  by  intolerable  pains  and  sufferings,  he 
ended  his  days. 

What  befell  the  Christians,  amidst  these  various  and  memorable  revolutions 
in  the  Roman  government,  we  will  now  state,  so  far  as  we  can  learn  the  facts 
from  the  WM-iters  of  those  times;  who  are  not  indeed  contemptible,  yet  are  not 
very  accurate,  nor  diligent,  nor  free  from  partiality,  nor  well  versed  in  public 
affairs  and  the  policy  of  courts.  If  historians  of  this  period,  like  Liry,  Tacitus 
and  Pulibius,  had  come  down  to  us,  we  could  much  better  trace  the  course  of 
events,  and  mark  the  steps  by  which  Christianity  rose  to  dominion  over  the  Ro- 
man world.  The  writers,  not  Christian,  such  as  Zosimus  and  Aurelius  Victor^ 
only  give  us  dry  summaries  of  events.  The  Christian  w^riters  are  more  full, 
especially  Laclantius,  (in  his  tract  de  mnrtibus  persequutor.)  and  Eusehius. 
But  they  are  excessive  in  their  praise  of  the  virtues  and  probity  of  Consiantine, 
and  continually  heap  reproaches  on  Maximian  and  his  friends  as  well  as  ene- 
mies; and  they  ascribe  everything  to  God,  who,  they  tell  us,  avenged  the  cru- 
elties of  Maximian,  rewarded  the  piety  and  wisdom  of  Conslanline,  and,  in  a 
wonderful  manner,  exalted  the  Christian  religion  over  the  worship  of  the  Gods. 
[p.  952.]  This  is  pious,  and  commendable;  and  the  facts  stated  are  true:  and  yet 
it  is  manifest,  that  human  passions  and  worldly  policy,  had  no  small  influence  in 
these  transactions. 

I  begin  with  the  West. —  Conslanline,  a?,  soon  as  he  had  obtained  power  and 
the  title  of  Cesar,  gave  to  the  Christians  of  his  provinces,  full  liberty  to  profess 
their  religion,  and  to  worship  God  according  to  the  divine  prescription.  His  fa- 
ther, as  we  have  already  seen,  had  forbidden  the  Christians  to  be  molested:  but 
he  had  not  confirmed  this  by  a  public  law;  nor  had  he  given  them  the  liberty, 
beyond  the  limits  of  Gaul,  of  assembling  publicly  for  worship,  of  holding  coun- 
cils, of  rebuilding  their  prostrate  temples,  or  of  creating  bishops.  But  Conslan- 
tine  freely  bestowed  on  them  all  these  privileges,  and  this  not  in  a  private  way, 
but  by  issuing  a  public  edict.    That  edict  is  the  oldest  of  all  his  religious  sta- 


Character  of  Constantino.  449 

tates.  Saj's  Lactantius,  (de  inorlibus  porscMjoutor.  c.  24.  p.  969.)  Sii«!cc'pto 
imperio,  Const.intiiiiis  nn<,M.stus  nihil  cgit  priiis,  quam  Cliristimos  culliii  nc  Deo 
Buo  reddere.  IJaec  fuit  prima  ejus  sanctio  sanetae  reli;;ioni.s  restilutae.  Nearly 
the  same  things  are  stated  in  his  divine  Institutes,  (L.  1,  e,  I.  p.  6.)  where  ho 
says  to  Constanline  :  Sahitarem — prineipatuin  praeclaro  initio  auspicatus  es,  cum 
cvorsani  subiatamquc  jnstiti;un  reducens,  teleniaium  alioruin  f.icinus  c.\j)iaHti. 
The  first  of  these  passages  manifestly  describes  the  nature  of  the  benefit,  con- 
ferred by  Constanline  on  the  Christians  at  the  commencement  of  his  reign.  For 
Laclanthis  says,  that  he — Ckrislianos  cullid  ac  Deo  sua  reddidisse.  They  had 
already  been  freed  from  the  fear  of  death  and  of  punishment,  by  his  father; 
but  it  was  Conslanline,  who  cuUui  cos  et  Deo  suo  itddebal ;  that  is,  who  restored 
their  Ic-^t  power  of  publiciy  worsliipping  God,  and  of  course  also  of  consecrat- 
ing edifices  to  this  worship.  Conslaniius  Chlarus,  therefore,  althougli  friendly 
to  the  Christians,  had  not  conceded  to  his  Spanish  subjects,  and  perhaps  not  to 
his  British,  the  liberty  of  holding  religious  meetings,  and  of  public  worship;  as 
we  have  before  attempted  to  prove. — This  remarkable  kindness  of  Conslanline 
to  tlie  Christians,  which  was  the  prominent  trait  in  his  character,  most  c?rtainly, 
did  not  proceed  from  any  love  for  the  religion  professed  by  the  Christians  ;  fur  at 
that  time  he  was  quite  ignorant  of  this  religion.  Neither  did  it  proceed  from  any 
magnanimity,  justice,  equity,  or  any  similar  characteristics  of  his  mind  ;  for  thcso 
virtues  were  very  imperfect  in  him,  before  he  embraced  Christianity.  I  can  dis- 
cover and  appreciate,  in  ConsLantine,  before  he  became  a  Christian,  prudence,  for- 
titude^ and  skill  in  governing;  but  I  also  discover  in  him  many  things  very  un- 
becoming in  a„  good,  wise,  magnanimous  and  just  prince,  and  indicative  of  a 
proud,  ambitious,  cruel  mind,  destitute  of  true  virtue.  These  declarations  it 
may  be  proper  to  confirm,  by  some  examples,  lest  I  should  appear  to  assail, 
without  reason,  a  prince  renowned  on  so  many  accounts. — I.  In  the  war  be- 
tween him  and  the  Franks  and  Alemanni,  in  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  as 
Eutropius  tells  us,  (Breviar.  Histor.  Rom.  L.  x.  c.  3.  p.  457.)  the  captured  kings 
of  these  nations,  Bcstiis  ohjecit,  cum  magnificum  spcctaculum  muneris  parasseL 
A  little  after,  passing  the  Rhine,  he  invaded  the  Bructeri,  a  people  of  the  Fran- 
cic  race,  slew  a  great  number,  and  again  condemned  the  captives  to  [p.  953.] 
the  wild  beasts.  See  the  Panegyrici  veleres,  published  at  Antwerp  by  Livi- 
neius,  (Orat,  ix.  p.  197,  198.)  These  kings  and  people  had  broken  their  cove- 
nanis;  but  such  punishments  arc  not  indicative  of  a  just  and  good,  but  of  a  bar- 
barous and  cruel  prince  :  temperate  severity  becomes  a  wise  and  humane  gene- 
ral, even  in  the  most  just  wars. — II.  Herculius,  when  the  civil  war  with  his  son 
arose  in  Italy,  went  to  Constanline  in  Gaul,  and  offered  him  his  daughter  Fau.s. 
ta,  with  the  title  of  Emperor  and  Augustus;  and  Constanline  very  eagerly  re- 
ceived both  ;  an  act  unworthy  of  a  magnanimous  prince,  and  manifestly  indica- 
tive of  a  mind  swelling  with  priile  and  ambition.  Herculius,  whom  he  knew  to 
be  perfidious  and  tyrannical,  had  no  power  of  conferring  dominion  and  rank  and 
titles  of  honor:  and  Constanline  must  have  been  greedy  of  honor,  and  exceed- 
ingly vain,  to  suppose  that  he  could  be  elevated  and  honored  by  such  a  man, 
and  to  actually  receive  honors  at  his  hands.  And  yet,  to  this  man,  his  father- 
in-law,  patron,  friend,  and  confederate,  he  would  afterwards  afford  no  aid,  either 
VOL.  II.  30 


450  Century  IV.— Section  5. 

against  Maximian  Galerius,  or  his  son  Maxenlius.  Herculius  fled  from  Italy, 
and  arriving  in  Gaul  implored  the  good  faith  of  the  aon-in-law :  but  the  son-in- 
law  could  not  be  moved. — III.  A  ftir  worse  and  a  blacker  crime,  undoubtedly, 
was,  his  compelling  this  very  Herculius^  from  whom  he  had  received  both  the 
purple  and  a  wife,  to  be  his  own  executioner.  Says  Lactantius,  (de  mortibua 
pers.  c.  30.  p.  977.)  :  Datur  ei  (there  was  given  to  Herculius,  by  his  son-in  law 
Constantine,)  potestas  liberae  mortis :  in  the  use  of  which  he  hung  himself  with 
a  rope.  How  cruel  a  favor  for  a  son-in-law  towards  his  father-in-law  !  I  ad- 
mit, that  Herculius  had  been  guilty  of  a  great  crime ;  for  he  had  sought  to  take 
the  life  of  his  son-in-law ;  if  we  believe  what  Lactantius  and  some  other  histo- 
rians relate.  But  this  will  not  efface  the  mark  of  cruelty  and  inhumanity  on 
Constantine.  If  Herculius  deserved  that  punishment,  it  was  certainly  most  un- 
suitable for  Conslantine  to  pass  the  sentence  on  his  father-in-law,  then  venera- 
ble for  his  hoary  head, — IV.  As  to  his  religion,  I  suppose,  that  before  he 
became  a  Christian,  Constantine  was  of  no  religion.  His  father  had  worshipped 
the  one  God,  despising  the  Gods  of  the  nations:  and  Eusehius  expressly  tells 
us,  (de  vita  Constant.  L.  1.  c.  17.  p.  416.)  that  all  his  children,  he  (Uni  omnium 
Regi  Deo  consecraverat ;  that  is,)  had  taught  them  to  worship  the  one  God, 
and  to  hold  the  Gods  of  the  Romans  and  the  other  nations  in  contempt.  Con- 
stantine, therefore,  in  obedience  to  the  commands  of  his  father,  as  he  himself  ad- 
mits, in  his  edict  preserved  by  Eusehius,  (de  vita  Constant.  L.  ii.  c.  49.  p.  466.) 
Vvished  to  be  accounted  a  worshipper  of  the  one  God.  And  yet,  when  occasion 
seemed  to  require  it,  and  lest  he  should  alienate  the  minds  of  the  people  and 
soldiers  from  him,  he  supplicated  the  Gods,  gave  thanks  to  them,  and  offered 
them  sacrifices  and  gifts.  For  example,  the  insun'ection  of  the  Franks,  in  the 
year  308,  being  quelled  sooner  than  was  expected,  he  repaired  immediately  to  the 
[p.  954.]  temple  of  Apollo — of  that  Apollo,  whose  oracles  he  had  ridiculed  and 
detested,  when  he  was  a  young  man  in  the  court  of  Diocletian,  as  he  himself  re- 
lates, (apud  Eusehium  de  vita  Constant.  L.  ii.  c.  50.  p.  467.) — he  went,  I  say, 
into  the  temple  of  Apollo,  and  by  most  splendid  gifts,  and  by  prayers  to  that 
God,  he  manifested  his  gratitude  for  the  peace  bestowed  by  him  on  the  empire. 
See  the  Panegyrici  veteres,  by  Livineius,  (Orat.  ix.  p.  204,  205.) — Such  being 
the  character  of  Constantine,  before  his  conversion  to  Christianity,  I  fully  believe, 
that  the  favors  he  conferred  on  the  Christians,  from  the  very  commencement  of 
his  reign,  did  not  proceed  either  from  his  humanity  and  justice,  or  from  any  love 
for  the  Christian  religion,  but  were  owing  solely  to  his  desire  to  establish  his 
own  authority  in  the  empire.  Fearing  the  power  and  snares  of  Maximian  Ga- 
lerius,  whom  he  knew  to  be  his  enemy,  he  wished  to  secure  to  himself  firm  pro- 
tection in  the  Christians,  against  all  adverse  occurrences  and  the  machinatiouH 
of  the  tyrant. 

His  kinsman  or  wife's  brother,  Maxentius,  on  assuming  the  imperatorial  dig- 
nity, followed  the  example  of  Constantine,  and  for  the  same  reason.  In  the 
provinces  which  Severus  had  governed,  namely  Italy  and  Africa,  after  the  death 
of  Constantius  Chlorus,  and  when  Severus  became  an  Emperor,  the  persecutions 
against  the  Christians  waxed  a  little  more  severe.  But  Maxe?itius,  equaWy  wiHi 
Constantine,  as  soon  as  he  assumed  imperatorial  power,  prudently,  and  to  se» 


State  of  Christians,  ^.  D.  301-311.  451 

cure  the  good  will  of  the  Christians,  put  nn  end  to  those  movements,  and  forhid 
the  Christians  to  be  molested.  As  to  Africa,  we  have  a  substantial  witness  in 
Opiatus  MileiitanuSjWho  says,  (de  sehisinate  Donatist,  L.  1.  e.  16.  p.  17.)  :  Max- 
entium  indulgentiam  misisse,  ntque  libertatem  Christianis  reatituis.se.  By  tho 
word  indiilgentiam,  we  may  understand  permission  to  meet  publicly  for  tho 
worship  of  God,  and  to  create  bishops,  and  build  temples.  By  the  word  liber- 
tatem, we  may  understand/a/Z  liberty,  such  as  they  enjoyed  before  the  persecu- 
tion of  Diocletian.  For  the  liberty  of  worshipping  God  privately,  without  fear, 
they  had  previously  enjoyed  under  Severus. — As  to  Italy  and  the  other  parts  of 
the  Roman  empire  subject  to  Maxentius,  Eiisehius,  (Hist.  Eecles.  L.  viii.  c.  14. 
p.  310.)  gives  such  an  account,  as  confirms  our  statement  of  the  cause  of  Max. 
enlius'  kindness  to  the  Christians.  It  was  feigned  or  political  benevolence.  For 
be  says  that  Maxentius  went  so  far,  Ut  religionis  Christianse  professionera 
sijiiularet,  fictam  pietatis  speciem  pree  se  talisse,  civibus  praecepisse,  ut  a  perse- 
cutione  Christianorum  desisterent.  And  he  adds,  that  his  motive  was,  Ut  in  eo 
morem  gereret,  blandireturque  populo  Romano.  'Et'  dpio-KiU  kui  Ko\a)iiU  rod 
i'riucu  Voi\uaioiv.  A  great  part,  therefore,  perhaps  the  greatest  part  of  the  Romish 
people,  was  Christian,  or  at  least  friendly  to  Christianity :  and  to  secure  their 
aid  and  attachment,  against  Maximian  Galerius,  who  was  meditating  war  upon 
him,  he  not  only  annulled  all  the  edicts  against  the  Christians,  but  even  pretend- 
ed to  be  ready  to  quit  the  religion  of  his  ancestors,  and  to  embrace  Christianity. 
He  therefore  appeared  to  exceed  Constantine,  in  good  will  towards  [p.  955.] 
Christians :  for  Constantine,  though  he  showed  himself  friendly  to  the  Chris- 
tians, manifested  no  disposition  to  embrace  their  religion,  but  continued  to  serve 
the  Gods  of  the  Romans. 

The  state  of  the  Christians  was  therefore  tolerably  prosperous  in  the  West. 
But  in  the  eastern  provinces,  governed  by  Maximian  Galerius  and  Maximin,  the 
storm  against  them  raged  with  the  greater  violence.  This  we  learn  from  several 
writers,  and  especially  Eusebius,  (Historia  Eecles.  and  de  martyr.  Palaestina).) 
Yet  the  monuments  of  this  period  that  have  reached  us,  though  few,  leave  no 
room  for  doubt,  that  in  those  provinces,  likewise,  the  state  of  the  Christians  was 
affected  by  that  of  the  commonwealth ;  and  that  Maximin  especially,  was  some- 
times more  indulgent  and  sometimes  more  severe,  towards  the  Christians  in  hi3 
provinces,  as  circumstances  seemed  to  him  to  demand.  In  the  sixth  year  of  the 
persecution,  A.  D.  308,  according  to  Eusebius,  (de  martyr.  PaloBst.  c.  9.  p.  332.) 
the  war  upon  the  Christians  in  Syria  and  Palestine,  seemed  to  cease ;  and  even 
tliose  condemned  to  the  mines,  were  restored  to  freedom :  but,  after  a  short 
time,  the  persecution  raged  with  more  violence  than  before.  For  new  edicts 
against  the  Christians,  were  issued  by  Maximin,  which  required  that  the  de- 
caying temples  of  the  Gods  should  be  repaired,  and  that  all  the  people,  children 
and  slaves  not  excepted,  should  be  forced  by  penalties  to  eat  the  flesh  sacrificed 
to  the  Gods.  Eusebius  confesses,  that  he  does  not  know  the  causes  of  these 
suspensions  and  renewals  of  the  persecution.  But  it  will  be  manifest,  to  a  per- 
son consulting  the  civil  history,  that  in  this  year,  (308,)  Maximin  assumed  the 
title  and  rank  of  Emperor  in  Syria,  contrary  to  the  will  of  Maximian  :  and 
Maximian  appeared  disposed  to  avenge  this  rash  act  by  a  war.     Now,  so  long 


45?y  Century   IV. — Section  5. 

as  Maximian's  wrath  continued,  Maximin  spared  the  Christians  in  his  provinces, 
in  order  to  conciliate  their  good  will.  But  when  Maximian  was  appeased,  the 
new  Emperor  Maximin  issued  fresh  edicts  against  the  Ci)ristians;  in  order  to 
show,  that  he  would  employ  the  power  conceded  to  him,  agreeably  to  the  plea- 
sure of  the  chief  Emperor,  whom  he  knew  to  be  hostile  to  the  Christians,  and  in 
order  to  insinuate  liimself  the  more  effectually  into  his  good  graces.  This  new 
fury,  after  a  little  time,  abated:  for  Maximin  concluded,  he  had  fulfilled  his  ob- 
ligations by  his  edicts;  and  he  thought  it  not  best  to  exasperate  the  feelings  of 
Christians  too  much,  lest  they  should  turn  against  him,  on  the  demise  of  Maxi- 
mian, whose  declining  and  very  bad  health  indicated  that  his  death  was  ap- 
proaching. And  therefore,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  seventh  year  of  the  perse- 
cution, (309,)  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  eighth,  (310,)  the  Christians,  (ac- 
cording to  Eusebius,  de  martyr.  Palaest.  c.  13.  p.  343.)  enjoyed  the  highest 
peace,  and  surprising  liberty;  so  that  even  those  who  had  been  condemned  to 
the  mines,  now  built  temples.  But  this  peace  was  interrupted,  in  the  course  of 
the  year  310,  by  the  governor  of  the  province,  who  informed  the  Emperor,  that 
the  Christians  abused  their  liberty.  And  hence  new  calamities  occurred,  and 
[p.  956,]  many  Christians  were  put  to  death  ;  of  whom  thirty-nine  were  beheaded 
on  one  and  the  same  day,  by  order  of  Maximin.  This  tempest,  however,  was 
Bhort,  and  soon  clemency  was  thought  to  be  safer  policy  than  severity.  For  in 
this  year.  Maximian  was  attacked  by  that  terrible  disease,  which  the  next  year 
put  an  end  to  his  life :  and,  as  all  could  see,  that  the  disease  must  terminate 
fatally,  and  as  it  was  feared  that,  after  his  death,  great  commotions  and  contests 
for  the  supremacy  would  arise,  prudence  induced  Maximin  to  desist  from  per- 
secuting the  Christians.  And  Maximian  Galerius  himself,  the  author  of  the 
persecution,  writhing  under  a  horrible  disease,  gradually  laid  aside  his  cruelty, 
as  his  strength  and  life  wasted  away.  And  hence,  on  tlie  one  side  the  fear  of 
war,  and  on  the  other,  the  fear  of  death,  restored  peace  and  security  everywhere 
to  the  Christians.     See  Eusebius,  (Historia  p]ccles.  L.  viii.  c.  16.  p.  314.) 

(2)  The  disease  of  Maximian  Galerius  is  described  particularly,  by  Eusebius, 
(Hist.  Eccles.  L.  viii.  c.  16.  p.  314.)  and  by  Lactantius,  (de  morlibus  persequutor. 
c.  33  &c.  p.  981  <Sic.)  Nothing  can  be  conceived  more  distressing.  For,  a  can- 
cer attacked  his  immoderately  fat  body,  and  by  eating  gradually,  amid  horrible 
Bufferings,  converted  it  into  a  living  corpse.  When  various  remedies  had  been 
tried  in  vain,  and  no  hope  of  recovery  remained,  a  little  before  his  death,  in  the 
month  of  April,  A.  D.  31 1,  by  a  public  edict,  in  the  name  of  all  the  Emperors,  he 
abolished  the  laws  enacted  against  the  Christians.  This  edict  is  extant  in  u 
Greek  version  from  the  Latin,  in  Eusebius,  (Plist.  Eccles.  L.  viii.  c.  17.  p.  415.) 
and  the  Latin  in  Laclanlius,  (de  mort.  perseq.  c.  34.  p.  984.)  In  this  edict,  ho 
permits,  Ul  denuo  sint  Chrisiiani,  el  conventicula  sua  (their  sacred  edifices  or 
temples)  component  (erect  or  build).  But  upon  this  condition,  Ul  nequid  contra 
disciplinam  agant.  By  the  disciplinam^  he  means  the  Roman  religion ;  as  ap- 
pears from  the  preamble  to  the  edict,  in  which  he  says,  that  he,  Antehac  voluisse 
cuncta  juxta  disciplinam  publicam  Romanorura  corrigere.  Therefore,  in  re- 
storing peace  to  the  Christians,  the  Eraperor  required  of  them,  that  they  should 
form  no  projects  agamst  the  public  religion  of  the  Romans,  and  should  not  pre- 


State  of  Christians,  A.  D.  30G-811.  453 

6ume  to  assail  the  Gods,  eitlier  by  words  or  actions.  Indeed,  the  condition 
seems  to  extend  still  farther,  and  to  require  of  Christians,  that  they  should  not 
attempt  to  convert  any  one  from  the  reli<,non  of  his  ancestors  to  Christianity. — 
Eiisebius  and  Laclantius  tell  us,  that  Maximian,  before  he  issued  this  edict, 
Deo  errorem  suum  confessnm  esse,  atque  exclamasse  inter  dolores,  se  pro  sce- 
lere  salisfacturum.  And  if  this  was  the  f;ict,  then  he  confessed,  that  the  Chris- 
tians' God  wns  justly  punishing  him  for  his  cruelty  to  the  Christians,  and  that 
he  was  conscious  of  this  divine  retribution.  But  the  very  edict  of  the  Emperor, 
wiiich  these  writers  exhibit,  militates  against  the  credibility  of  their  statement. 
For  Maximian  is  so  far  from  there  confessing  that  he  had  done  wickedly  and 
unjustly,  that  he  maintains,  on  the  contrary,  thnt  every  thing  he  liad  done  ngainst 
the  Christians,  had  been  done  wisely  and  well.  And  he  tells  us,  that  he  had 
aimed  to  et!ect,  by  his  laws,  Ut  Christian!,  qui  parentum  suorum  reli-  [p.  957.] 
quorant  sectam,  ad  honas  mentcs  rcdirent.  And  therefore,  in  this  liist  act  of  his 
life,  he  represents  the  Christians  as  being  senseless ;  and  he  entertained  no  doubt, 
that  the  religion  of  the  Romans  was  better  and  more  sound  than  that  of  Chris- 
tians. A  little  after,  he  explicitly  charges  the  Christians  with  stuUitia;  and  not 
a  syllable  does  he  utter,  from  which  it  can  be  inferred,  that  any  penitence  for 
his  conduct  had  entered  his  heart,  or  that  he  regarded  Christianity  as  the  only 
true  and  divine  religion.  He  states  tivo  reasons  for  changing  his  policy  towards 
the  Christians.  Fiist,  he  had  noticed  that  the  Christians,  while  urged  by  vio- 
lence and  peril  to  offer  sacrifices,  lived  destitute  of  all  religion,  and  neither  wor- 
shipped Christ  nor  the  Gods:  Cum  plurimi  in  proposito  perseverarent,  ac  vide- 
remus,  nee  Diis  eosdem  cultum  ac  religionem  debitara  exhibcre,  nee  Christiano- 
rura  Deum  observare.  And  therefore,  considering  any  religion,  even  a  corrupt 
one,  to  be  better  than  none,  he  would  rather  have  the  Christians  follow  their 
own  religion,  than  have  no  religion  at  all.  And  secondly,  to  this  he  adds  ano- 
ther reason,  namely,  his  cZ^;n(?7?cy ;  Contemplationem  mitissimaj  clemenlicc  no.s- 
tr<e  intuentes  et  consuetudinem  sempiternam,  qua  solemus  cunctis  hominibus 
veniam  indulgere,  promtissimam  in  his  quoque  indulgentiam  nostram  credidimus 
porrigendam,  ut  denuo  sint  Christiani.  Maximian  therefore  would  not  have  it 
thought,  that  he  followed  right  and  justice,  but  rather  clemency;  and  that  he 
was  indulgent  to  persons  whom  he  pronounced /ooZs,  and  destitute  of  sense,  and 
not  that  he  showed  himself /us^  to  the  innocent  and  the  good.  I  can  readily 
suppose,  that  the  friends  who  were  his  counsellers,  suggested  these  reasons  to 
him.  Yet  the  concluding  words  of  the  edict,  undoubtedly,  disclose  the  cause 
which  drew  this  edict  from  him,  and  also  manifest  his  views  of  the  Christian  re- 
ligion: Undejuxta  banc  indulgentiam  nostram  debebunt  (Christiani)  Deuyn  suum 
orare  pro  salute  nostra  et  reipubliccc  ac  sud,  ut  undique  versum  respublica  restet 
incolurais,  et  securi  vivere  in  sedibus  suis  possint.  From  these  words,  it  is  ma- 
nifest,— I.  That  Maximian  believed,  the  Christians  had  some  sort  of  a  God. — 
II.  That  this  God  w'as  not  the  supreme  Creator  of  all  things,  whom  all  men 
ought  to  worship,  but  merely  the  God  of  Christians,  or  the  God  of  a  particular 
race,  such  as  many  other  of  the  Gods.  For  the  Romans,  the  Greek.s,  and  all 
the  nations,  in  that  age,  believed  that  each  race  of  people  had  its  appropriate 
and  peculiar  God. — III.  That  this  God  of  a  particular  race,  possessed  great 


454  Century  IV. — Section  6. 

power,  so  that  he  could  bestow  health,  and  avert  dangers  from  the  state. — IV. 
But  that  this  God  did  not  confer  such  benefits,  except  at  the  request  of  his  own 
worshippers.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  some  one  of  the  attendants  on  the 
diseased  Emperor,  suggested  to  him,  tliat  the  God  of  the  Christians,  while  resi- 
dent in  this  our  world,  restored  life  to  the  dead,  and  health  to  the  sick;  and  that 
[p.  958.]  these  benefits  had  not  yet  ceased;  for  there  were  many  examples  of 
sick  persons  miraculously  iiealed  by  the  prayers  of  Christians.  And  therefore, 
possibly  the  Emperor  also,  by  the  aid  of  this  God,  might  survive  the  dreadful 
disease  which  was  consuming  him,  if  he  should  grant  peace  to  the  Christians, 
and  ask  their  prayers  for  him.  The  Emperor,  being  extremely  anxious  to  live, 
listened  to  the  suggestion ;  and  therefore,  when  his  case  was  desperate,  when 
the  Gods  of  the  Romans  had  in  vain  been  importuned  with  prayers  and  sacri- 
fices, he  at  last  took  refuge  in  the  Christians'  God ;  whom,  nevertheless,  he 
would  not  worship.  Hence.,  it  was  the /ear  of  death,  and  the  influence  of  su- 
perstition,  and  not  the  goadings  of  conscience  for  crimes  committed,  that  pro- 
duced this  edict. — On  the  publication  of  the  edict,  the  war  upon  the  Christians 
every  where  ceased;  the  prisoners  were  released,  the  exiles  were  recalled,  and 
meetings  were  everywhere  held  without  opposition.  Maximin,  indeed,  would 
not  publicly  proclaim  the  edict,  in  the  provinces  which  he  governed,  (as  Eusebius 
states,  Hist.  Eecles.  L.  ix.  c.  1.  p.  347.)  yet  he  gave  verbal  instructions  to  the 
rulers  under  him,  no  longer  to  inflict  any  evils  on  the  Christians ;  and  this,  ac- 
cording to  Eusebius,  was  as  advantageous  to  the  Christians,  as  if  the  edict  had 
been  published.  Eusebius  tells  us,  that  it  was  hatred  of  Christians  that  pre- 
vented Maximin  from  publishing  an  edict  so  salutary  to  them.  But  I  can 
hardly  persuade  myself  that  this  was  the  fact.  For  Maximin  did  the  thing 
which  the  edict  required,  although  he  would  not  publish  it.  It  is  more  probable, 
therefore,  that  Maximin,  knowing  the  death  o^  Maximian  to  be  very  near,  laid 
up  the  edict  of  the  Emperor — who  might  even  then  be  dead, — intending  to  wait 
and  see  what  would  occur  after  his  death. 

§  VI.  Constantine's   Edicts  in  favor  of  the   Christians,  A.  D.  312, 

313.  On  the  death  of  Maximian  Galerius  in  the  year  311,  the 
provinces  which  he  had  governed  were  divided  between  Maxi- 
min and  Licinius.  The  fornier  had  the  Asiatic  provinces,  and 
the  latter  the  European.  But  Maxentius^  the  Emperor  of  Italy 
and  Africa,  meditated  war  against  Coiistaniine^  that  he  might  ren- 
der himself  Emperor  of  the  entire  West.  The  ostensible  cause, 
however,  of  the  war,  was  the  death  of  his  father  Maximian  Her- 
culiiis,  whom  Constantine  had  compelled  to  destroy  his  own  life. 
Constantine,  therefore,  prudently  anticipating  the  counsels  of  his 
enemy,  marched  his  army  from  Gaul  into  Italy,  and  after  weaken- 
ing Maxentius  in  several  conflicts,  entirely  routed  him  in  the  vear 
312,  in  a  fierce  battle,  at  the  Milvian  Bridge,  not  far  from  Eome  : 
and  Maxentius  in  the  flight,  by  the  breaking  down  of  the  bridge, 


Constantlne^s  Edicts.  455 

fell  into  the  Tiber  and  perished.  The  victorious  Constaniine  en- 
tered the  cit}^,  and  not  long  after,  with  Licinius  his  col-  [p.  959.] 
league,  issued  an  edict  which  gave  the  Christians  the  fullest  li- 
berty of  living  according  to  their  own  principles,  institutions  and 
usages.  And  the  next  year  A.  D.  313,  he  confirmed  and  defined 
this  liberty  more  precisely,  in  an  edict  drawn  up  at  Milan.  Maxi- 
miii^  indeed,  who  governed  the  East,  was  menacing  the  Chris- 
tians with  new  calamities,  and  also  preparing  for  war  with  the 
Emperors  of  the  West.  But  fortune  forsook  his  enterprises.  For 
Licinius^  encountering  him  at  Adrianople,  obtained  a  complete 
victor}^  And  Mccximin  escaping  by  flight,  drank  poison,  and 
died  a  miserable  death  at  Tarsus,  in  the  year  311. (') 

(1)  These  occurrences  in  civil  history,  I  shall  not  here  amplify  and  illus- 
trate :  for  they  are  well  known ;  and,  being  supported  by  the  testimony  both  of 
Christians  and  Not-Christians,  they  are  doubted  by  no  one.  The  justice  of  the 
wars, — first  against  Maxentius  and  then  against  Maximin,  even  the  enemies  of 
Constant'me  do  not  question  ;  but  they  equally  recount  the, flagitious  acts,  the 
vices  and  the  crimes  of  both  Maxentius  and  Maximin.  I  shall  therefore  speak 
only  of  things  relating  to  the  christian  community. —  Constaniine  with  Licinius, 
immediately  after  the  victory  over  Maxentius,  by  an  edict  addressed  to  the  Prc- 
torian  Prefect,  granted  to  the  Christians  and  to  all  other  sects,  perfect  liberty  to 
worship  God  in  their  own  way,  to  profess  their  religion,  to  hold  religious  meet- 
ings, and  to  erect  temples.  See  Ensebius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  ix.  c.  9.  p.  360.  363.) 
As  Maxentius  was  vanquished  in  the  month  of  October,  A.  D.  312,  and  the 
edict  was  issued  directly  after  the  victory,  I  think  it  certain,  that  the  edict  was 
written  near  the  close  of  the  same  year.  This  Jirst  edict  in  favor  of  llie  Chris- 
tians and  other  sects,  is  lost :  but  from  the  second  edict,  which  was  drawn  up  at 
Milan  the  next  year,  313,  (of  which  we  shall  speak  hereafter,)  it  appears,  that 
the  first  edict  contained  some  defect,  which  might  deter  persons  from  embrac- 
ing Christianity.  Yet  what  that  defect  was,  the  second  edict  does  not  definitely 
state.  The  words  of  the  second  edict,  emendatory  of  the  firf-t,  are  given  to  us 
by  Eusehius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  I^,  x.  c.  5.  p.  388.)  Lactantius  also  gives  us  this 
edict,  in  Latin,  the  language  in  which  it  was  written,  (de  mort.  Persequut. 
e.  48.  p.  1007.)  but  he  omits  the  Preface,  as  not  being  pertinent  to  his  object. 
The  words  in  Eusehius  are  these :  Sed  quoniam  in  eo  rescripto,  quo  hsec  facul- 
tas  illis  concessa  fuerat,  (in  which  this  liberty  of  retaining  and  practising  their 
religion,  was  conceded  to  Christians,)  multa3  ac  diversae  sectae  nominatim  ac 
diserte  additae  videbantar,  {ttoWuX  Kal  J'laji'.pot  aipca-iig  iS'iKcvv  TTBaa-Tfd-uo-d-ai 
o-apwff,)  quidam  eorum,  ob  banc  fortassis  caussam,  paulo  post  ab  hnjus-  [p.  960.] 
modi  observantia  destiterunt,  (<i«-o  tJ??  raiavrm  irapapvKa^ian  dviKf'.vovra  )  That 
is — if  I  do  not  mistake,  they  forsook  the  christian  religion,  and  went  over  to  the 
other  sects.  From  this  statement  of  Eusehius,  it  appears, — I.  'i'hut  this  edict 
gave  absolute  freedom  of  professing  their  religion,  not  only  to  Christians,  but 


456  Century  IV. — Section  G. 

likewise  to  all  other  sects ;  e.  g.  Jews,  Samaritans,  Manicbaeans,  and  all  others. — 
II.  TliAt  these  other  sects  besides  Christians,  were  expressly  named  and  desig- 
nated in  the  deeiee. — III.  Hence,  some  Christians  took  occasion  to  forsake  the 
christian  religion,  or  to  neglect  the  observances  of  it.  This  is  very  obscure  :  for 
who  can  easily  understand  how  some  Christians  should  forsake  their  religion, 
because  other  sects  besides  the  christians  were  expressly  named  in  the  Imperato- 
rial  edict?  And  hence  learned  men  disagree  as  to  the  meaniyig  of  the  passage. 
Some,  as  Tillemont^  Basnage  and  others,  frankly  confess  their  ignorance  of  its 
import:  and  they  charge  the  edict  with  obscurity:  but  perhaps,  they  might 
better  charge  Eusebius'  Greek  translator^  with  carelessness  in  translating.  I 
think  the  meaning  of  the  Emperors  will  be  sufficiently  clear,  if  we  compare 
what  precedes  and  what  follows,  with  the  words  which  contain  this  apparent 
enigma.  In  the  Preface  to  the  edict,  the  Emperors  say,  that  they,  in  the  first 
edict,  Sanxisse,  ut  ceteri  omnes,  turn  Christian!,  sectae  suae  ac  religionis  lidem 
et  observantiam  retinerent,  (t«j  anfiaiui  tavruv  TJiv  ttiVt/v  ^yXuTTtiv.)  Now  this 
liberty,  granted  to  the  Christians  and  to  the  other  sects  expressly  named,  some 
persons  explained  thus :  That  it  was  the  pleasure  of  the  Emperors,  that  every 
person  should  adhere  to  the  sect  or  religion,  in  which  he  had  been  horn  and 
educated,  and  should  not  go  over  to  another  religion.  And  therefore,  some  who 
had  recently  embraced  Christianity, — Jews,  for  instance,  returned  to  the  reli- 
gion of  their  fathers,  that  they  might  not  appear  to  disobey  the  mandate  of 
the  Emperors  :  and  other  persons  of  other  sects,  w-ho  had  not  long  before  em- 
braced Christianity,  did  the  same.  This  false  interpretation  of  their  first  edict, 
the  Emperors  corrected  by  a  second  edict,  (preserved  by  Eusebius  and  Lactan- 
tius,)  the  following  year,  313,  published  at  Milan,  after  the  defeat  of  Maximin 
and  the  establishment  of  the  government  of  the  empire.  For  in  this  edict,  they 
corrected  the  ambiguity  of  the  first :  and  this  they  do,  in  terms  which  show,  that 
we  have  rightly  apprehended  the  defect  in  the  first  edict.  For  they  thus  ex- 
press themselves :  Itaque  hoc  consilio  salubri  ac  rectissima  ratione  ineundura 
esse  credimus,  ut  nulli  omnino  facultatem  abnegandam  putareraus,  qui  vel  obser- 
vationi  Christianorum,  vel  ei  religioni  mentem  suam  dederet,  quam  ipse  sibi  ap- 
tissimam  sentiret.  They  had  just  before  written  :  Credidimus  ordinanda,  ut  dare- 
mus  et  Christians  et  omnibus  liheram  postestatem  sequendi  religionem,  quam  quis- 
[p.  961.]  que  xoluisset.  Therefore  many  had  before  supposed,  that  it  vi\as  not  the 
pleasure  of  the  Emperors,  that  every  one  should  follow  the  religion  which  he 
preferred;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  they  wished  every  one  to  adhere  to  the 
religion  transmitted  to  him  from  his  ancestors. — In  the  same  edict,  moreover, 
the  Emperors  expand  and  amplify  the  privileges  conferred  on  the  Christians  by 
the  first  edict.  They  first  removed  all  the  conditions,  with  which  the  liberty 
granted  to  Christians  in  the  former  edict  was  circumscribed  :  Scire  dignationen 
tuam  convenit,  placuisse  nobis,  ut,  amotis  omnibus  omnino  conditionibus,  quae 
prius  scriptis — super  Christianorum  nomine  videbantur,  nunc  caveres,  ut  simpli- 
citer  unusquisque  eorum  -  -  citra  ullam  inquietudinem  ac  molestiam  sni  id  ip- 
8um  observare  contendat.  What  these  conditions  were,  which  the  Emperors 
now  removed,  it  is  impossible  at  this  day  to  determine  satisfactorily. — The 
Emperors  add  explicitly,  that  what  they  conceded  to  the  Christians,  they  con- 


Constantlne's  Edicts.  457 

ceded  also  to  the  otlicr  sects,  Ut  in  colendo,  quod  qnisque  delonrcrit,  habeat  libe- 
ram  facultatem. — Afterwards  they  revert  again  to  the  Christians  and,  with 
great  particuhirity,  ordain,  that  their  pUices  of  worship  should  be  restored  to 
them,  without  pay  ;  and  also  the  lands,  which,  before  the  persecution,  Ad  ju.s 
corporis  eorum,  id  est,  ccelesiarum,  non  hominum  singulorum,  pertinuerint:  for 
in  tlie  first  edict,  tfiis  matter  was  not  stated  and  explained  with  perfect  clearness. 
This  last  part  of  the  edict  is  drawn  up  with  great  accuracy,  and  shows  that  it 
was  dictated  by  one  very  friendly  to  the  Christians. 

As  in  the  West  there  were  two  edicts  issued  in  favor  of  the  Christians,  the 
fisst  not  very  perspicuous,  and  the  second  more  clear;  so  in  the  East,  the  same 
thing  occurred,  though  in  a  different  manner.  Maximin,  the  Sovereign  of  the 
East,  notwithstanding  he  hated  the  Christians,  dared  not  oppose  the  edict  of 
Maximian  Galcrius  favorable  to  them  ;  yet,  after  a  little  time,  he  assailed 
them  again  by  concealed  artifices.  For,  as  Laciantius  says,  (de  mort.  perseq. 
c.  36.  p.  986.)  :  Subornabat  legationes  civitatum,  quae  peterent,  ne  intra  civita- 
tes  suas  Christianis  conventicula  extruere  llceret.  Quibus  ille  adnuebat.  This 
Eusehius  confirms,  and  more  fully  explains ;  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  ix.  c.  2.  p.  349.) 
for  he  says,  that  Maximin  first  induced  the  Antiochians,  by  means  of  one  Theo- 
tecnus,  Curator  of  that  city,  a  wicked  and  violent  man,  to  request  of  him,  as  a 
very  great  favor,  that  no  Christian  should  be  permitted  to  reside  in  Antioch. 
And  as  Maxiviin  granted  their  request,  other  cities  readily  followed  the  exam- 
ple of  the  Antiochians,  and  Maximin  most  cheerfully  assented  to  their  wishes ; 
and  thus  a  new  and  violent  persecution  arose  in  the  East  against  the  Christians. 
Moreover,  the  Emperor  aided  those  impious  enemies  of  the  christian  name,  by 
edicts  engraven  on  plates  of  brass;  one  of  which,  presented  to  the  Tyrians, 
Eusehius  has  preserved  ;  (Hit.  Eccles.  L.  ix.  c.  7.  p.  352.)  As  to  these  [p.  962.] 
legations  from  cities,  there  can  be  no  doubt;  for  Maximin  himself  declares,  in 
his  rescript  to  Sabinus,  (apud  Eusehium,  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  ix.  c.  9.  p.  361.)  that 
the  Nicomedians,  and  other  cities,  did  send  such  legations  to  him.  But  whether 
it  was  true,  as  Lactaniius  and  Eusehius  would  have  us  believe,  that  Maximin 
suhorned  those  legations  of  the  cities,  or,  as  Eusehius  says,  (loc.  cit.  c.  2.  p. 
349.)  :  ipsum  ad  se  legationem  misisse  adversus  Christianos ;  I  confess,  I  do 
not  know.  Undoubtedly,  the  Christians  suspected  it  was  so :  but  whether  their 
suspicion  was  well  or  ill  founded  is,  I  think,  very  uncertain.  For  they  had  no 
other  evidence  for  their  suspicion,  than  the  ill-will  of  Maximin  towards  Chris- 
tians. It  certainly  might  be,  that  the  Antiochians,  either  spontaneously,  or  at 
the  instigation  of  Theotecnus,  went  to  the  Emperor,  requesting  the  banishment 
of  the  Christians;  and  that  after  he  had  gratified  their  wishes,  other  cities,  as 
Eusehius  himself  states,  followed  the  example  of  the  Antiochians.  That  the 
Emperor  sliould  grant  the  petitions  of  the  cities,  I  do  not  at  all  wonder.  For 
the  supremacy  in  the  empire  which  he  sought,  and  the  war  against  Conslantine 
and  Licimius  which  he  meditated,  made  the  good  will  of  the  cities  and  citizens 
exceedingly  necessary  to  him.  The  narrative  of  Eusehius  throws  light  on  the 
subject.  He  acknowledges, — notwithstanding  Laciantius  makes  Maximin  the 
author  of  all  the  legations, — that  only  one  legation,  the  Antiochian,  was  sub- 
orned by  him;  and  that  the  others  proceeded  from  the  free  choice  of  the  cities, 


458  Century  IV.— Section  6. 

following  the  example  of  the  Antiochians.  He  also  says,  that  Theotecnus, 
the  Curator  of  Antioch,  by  a  crafty  trick,  induced  the  Anliochian  people 
to  send  the  legation  for  the  expulsion  of  the  Christians  from  that  city:  for 
he  had  himself  consecrated  a  statue  of  Jupiter  Philius,  and  he  pretended 
that  this  God,  by  his  statue,  had  directed  that  all  Christians,  his  ene- 
mies, should  be  expelled  from  the  city,  and  from  the  fields  around  An- 
tioch. Now  if  tlie  facts  were  so,  we  must  believe,  that  if  Maximin  sub- 
orned the  Antiochian  legation,  which  was  an  example  for  the  others, 
then  Theotecnus  acted  the  part  he  did,  by  the  command  of  Maximin.  And  per- 
haps this  was  the  fact.  But  how  did  Eusebius  and  Lactantius  get  their  knowledge 
of  it? — From  Theotecnus? — He  certainly  never  disclosed  to  the  Christians  this 
state  secret  of  his  master.  Whence,  therefore,  did  tliey  learn,  that  Theotecnus 
was  only  the  tool  of  the  Emperor?  Who  does  not  see,  that  this  charge  against 
the  Emperor,  turns  out  to  be  a  mere  suspicion;  and  that  the  Christians  had  no 
authority  for  it?  As  already  remarked,  Maximin  himself,  in  the  rescript  in 
which  he  mentions  these  legations,  (apud  Eusehiiim,  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  ix.  c.  9. 
p.  360,  361.)  states,  that  it  was  with  reluctance  and  sorrow,  he  conceded  to  the 
Nicomedians  and  to  others  the  power  of  expelling  the  Christians:  for  their  pe- 
titions seemed  to  him  contrary  to  equity:  but  that  he  was  compelled  to  answer 
them  kindly ;  for  all  the  Emperors  before  him  had  done  the  same  thing :  and  it 
[p.  963.jwas  a  thing  pleasing  to  the  immortal  Gods.  In  this  language  there  is 
reference,  undoubtedly,  to  that  oracle  of  Jupiter  Philius  at  Antioch,  and  to  the 
responses  of  other  Gods,  requiring  the  expulsion  of  Christians  from  the  cities. 
And  I  can  almost  believe,  that  Maximin  does  not  misrepresent  the  truth  ;  and 
that,  not  he,  but  the  pagan  priests,  who  undoubtedly  dictated  those  oracles, 
were  the  real  authors  of  those  legations  against  the  Christians.  Whoever  at- 
tentively considers  the  state  of  the  empire  at  that  time,  and  the  political  designs 
of  Maximin,  will  readily  perceive,  that  it  was  not  for  his  interest,  either  to  irri- 
tate the  Christians,  or  to  oppose  the  friends  of  the  Gods :  on  the  contrary,  pru- 
dence demanded,  that  he  should  temporise,  and  as  far  as  possible,  conciliate  the 
good  will  of  both  parties.  And  therefore,  as  he  admits  in  the  rescript  referred 
to,  he  forbid  on  the  one  hand  the  forcing  of  Christians  by  violence  and  punish- 
ments, to  worship  the  Gods ;  and  on  the  other  hand  he  gratified  the  cities,  which 
would  not  endure  Christians  among  them.  It  is  the  common  practice  of  the 
Christian  writers,  to  load  the  memory  of  the  enemies  of  Christianity  with  many 
and  great  suspicions  and  accusations ;  some  of  which,  indeed,  are  not  to  be 
treated  with  contempt ;  but  others,  if  carefully  examined,  will  appear  weak  and 
futile. 

But  let  us  pass  over  these  transactions,  and  consider  what  results  followed, 
in  the  East,  from  the  edicts  of  Consiantine  and  Licinius  in  the  favor  of  the 
Christians, — When  the  edict  of  A.  D.  312,  was  first  brought  to  Maximin,  he 
would  not  publish  it  in  the  provinces  under  his  jurisdiction.  This,  I  would  at- 
tribute, not  so  much  to  his  hatred  of  the  Christians, — the  cause  assigned  by 
Eusebius,  as  to  his  pride  and  arrogance.  For  he  wished  to  be  accounted  the 
chief  of  the  Emperors,  and  superior  in  rank  to  Consiantine  and  Licinius :  and 
therefore,  he  thought  it  degrading  to  his  majesty,  to  publish  a  law  enacted  by 


Constantines   Conversion.  459 

persons  v.liom  he  deemed  his  inferiors.  But  he  addressed  an  epistle  to  the  go- 
vernors in  iiis  dominions,  which  is  preserved  by  Eusclnus,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  ix. 
e.  9.  p.  360.)  ditlering  indeed,  in  many  particulars,  from  the  edict  of  the  West- 
ern Emperors,  and  yet  favorable  to  the  Christians.  And  this  epistle  shows  very 
clearly,  that  Maximin  did  not  wish  to  alienate  the  minds  of  Christians  from 
him,  but  rather  to  conciliate  their  good  will.  For  he  proclaims  his  humanity  and 
clemency  towards  them,  and  declares,  that  from  the  commencement  of  his  reign, 
he  had  inculcated  on  the  magistrates  under  him,  not  to  compel  any  person  to 
worship  the  Gods  by  penal  inflictions.  He  says  :  Saepe  devotioni  tuae  partim 
per  litems  scripsi,  partim  coram  in  mandatis  dedi,  ut  adversus  Christianos  pro- 
vinciarum  rectores  nihil  acerbe  statuant,  sed  potius  clementer  et  moderate  in- 
dulgeant,  seque  illis  accommodent.  He  had  indeed  given  kind  answers  to  the 
delegations  from  cities  that  were  unwilling  to  tolerate  Christians  within  their 
walls:  but  this  he  did,  unwillingly,  and  partly  from  respect  to  the  laws  of  for- 
mer Emperors,  and  partly  in  obedience  to  the  oracles  of  the  Gods:  but,  now, 
he  adds  in  conclusion,  it  is  his  pleasure,  that  the  Christians  should  be  treated 
humanely  and  kindly. — The  Christians  did  not  put  confidence  in  this  edict, 
knowing  Maximin  to  be  unstable  minded,  and  at  one  time  to  oppose,  [p.  964.] 
and  at  another  to  favor  them,  according  to  the  changing  state  of  his  aflairs,  and 
the  condition  of  the  republic.  And  as  the  edict  did  not  explicitly  give  them  li- 
berty to  erect  temples  and  hold  religious  meetings,  they  dared  not  assume 
such  liberty,  and  profess  openly  their  religion. — But  after  he  had  been  van- 
quished by  Licinius,  in  the  year  313,  he  issued  a  new  and  more  ample  edict  in 
liivor  of  the  Christians ;  which  also  is  preserved  by  Eusebius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L. 
ix.  c.  10.  p.  363.)  In  this  edict,  he  complains,  (whether  truly  or  falsely,  is  un- 
certain,) that  the  judges  and  magistrates  did  not  correctly  understand  his  former 
edict;  and  then,  he  explicitly  gives  the  Christians  liberty  to  rebuild  their  sacred 
edifices  ;  and  he  commands,  that  the  lands  taken  from  them  should  be  restored. 
— Shortly  after  issuing  this  decree,  he  died  at  Tarsus.  And  thus,  in  the  year 
313,  the  Christians  of  both  the  East  and  West  were  released  from  all  peril  and 
fear,  after  enduring  infinite  evils,  especially  in  the  Eastern  countries,  from  the 
year  303,  or  during  ten  years. 

§    VII.      Constanline's  Conversion  to   Christianity.      About  tlie 

same  time,  and  after  the  victory  over  Maxentius  at  the  Milvian 
bridge,  Constaniine  the  Great  is  said  to  have  embraced  the  Chris- 
tian rehgion  :  and  it  is  the  common  and  ancient  opinion,  that  the 
sign  of  a  cross  seen  by  him  in  the  heavens,  produced  and  con- 
firmed this  resolution  of  the  Emperor.  If  that  man  is  a  Chris- 
tian who  thinks  the  Christian's  manner  of  worshipping  God  is 
a  good  and  holy  one,  then  I  have  no  doubt  that  Constantine  was, 
at  that  time,  a  Christian.  But  if  no  man  should  be  called  a 
Christian,  unless  he  believes  that  Christianity  is  the  only  true  re- 
ligion, and  that  all  other  religions  arc  false,  then  I  suppose  Con- 


400  Century  IV.— Section  7. 

stantine  became  a  Christian  at  a  later  period,  and  some  years  af- 
ter the  victory  over  Maxenliiis.  For,  if  any  reliance  can  be 
placed  on  public  records,  it  is  certain  that  Constaniine  at  first 
considered  all  religions  to  be  good,  and  he  supposed  Christ  to  be 
like  the  rest  of  the  national  Gods ;  but  after  some  time  he  ac- 
quired purer  and  better  knowledge  on  religious  subjects,  and  he 
concluded  that  God  ought  to  be  worshipped  in  no  other  than 
the  Christian  manner.(')  But  what  is  reported  of  the  sign  of  a 
cross,  or  rather,  of  a  IMonogramm  of  the  name  of  Chrid,  seen  in 
the  clouds  by  him  and  his  army,  is  more  difficult  to  be  explained 
than  many  imagine  ;  and  the  inquiring  and  truth-seeking  mind 
is  so  perplexed,  that  it  can  hardly  determine  what  to  deny,  or 
what  to  believe.(^) 

[p.  965.]  (1)  That  Conslantine  the  Great  suieerely  and  truly  embraced  the 
Cliristian  religion,  is  put  beyond  all  question,  b}'  his  deeds,  his  legislation,  his  poli- 
cy and  his  institutions:  nor  is  there  any  event  in  history,  except  those  only  of  sacred 
history,  which,  in  my  opinion,  rests  on  stronger  evidence  both  of  testimony  and  of 
facts.  If  the  man,  who  makes  it  his  chief  object  through  a  great  part  of  life  to  es- 
tablish and  propagate  the  Christian  religion;  who  resists  and  depresses  the  reli- 
gions opposed  to  it ;  who  changes  nearly  his  whole  system  of  jurisprudence  for  its 
benefit ;  who,  to  his  last  breath,  praises  and  extols  and  solemnly  professes  Christ ; 
who  commands  his  children  to  be  instructed  and  trained  up  in  that  religion ;  who 
exhorts  and  excites  all  his  citizens  and  people  to  embrace  it ;  who  honors  and  dis- 
tinguishes its  priests  and  ministers  with  various  benefits,  and  does  many  other 
things  of  like  nature,  whereby  the  Christian  religion  is  sustained  and  strength- 
ened,— if,  I  say,  that  man  does  not  deserve  the  name  of  a  Christian,  to  whom 
can  that  name  belong?  But  that  the  truth  may  be  obscured  and  rendered  pow- 
erless, by  the  biasses  of  the  mind,  is  seen  in  this  case.  For  there  are  very 
learned  and  perspicacious  men,  who  either  deny  that  Constaniine  the  Great  was 
a  Christian,  or  maintain  that  he  hypocritically  professed  Christianity,  in  order  to 
secure  his  supremacy  in  the  commonwealth.  Some  of  these  are  led  to  such 
conclusions  by  their  zeal  for  new  religious  opinions,  some  by  hostility  to  the 
clergy,  whom  it  pains  them  to  see  Conslantine  invest  with  so  many  privileges  and 
favors ;  and  some  by  the  evils  which,  they  are  grieved  to  see,  crept  into  the 
church  through  ConsLanline.  Yet  they  would  be  thought  to  indulge  no  ground- 
less suspicion,  and  therefore  they  assign  reasons  for  their  opinion. — First : 
Many  direct  our  attention  to  the  life  and  conduct  of  Constantine;  in  which 
there  are  doubtless  many  things  altogether  unworthy  of  a  Christian  man.  He 
slew  Crispus  his  son,  and  Fausta  his  wife,  on  mere  suspicion :  He  destroyed 
Licinius  his  kinsman,  together  with  his  innocent  son,  contrary  to  his  plighted 
faith:  He  was  immoderately  addicted  to  pride,  to  vanity,  and  to  voluptuous- 
ness :  He  tolerated  superstitions,  that  are  inconsistent  with  Christianity.  But 
the  excellent  men  who  resort  to  such  reasoning,  e,  g.  Christian  Thomasius 


Constantines   Conversion.  401 

Godfrey  Arnold,  and  many  others, — to  speak  |)laiiily,  Irilic  with  thcsultjcct,  and 
niisus(5  the  ambiguous  term  Christian  to  deceive  the  incautious.  That  man  i» 
p'opcrlij  denominated  a  Christian,  who  not  only  believes  in  Chri.st,  but  also  re- 
gulates his  life  by  the  precepts  of  the  religion  which  Christ  taught:  but  those 
also  are  called  Christi.ins,  who  entertain  no  doubts  of  the  truth  and  divinity  of 
the  Christian  religion,  although  they  deviate  in  conduct  from  its  rules.  That 
Conslanlinc  was  not  a  Christian  in  the  former  sense,  is  demonstrated  by  the 
vices  and  crimes  laid  to  his  charge:  but  that  he  was  a  Christian  in  this  sense  of 
the  word,  no  fair-minded  man,  who  is  free  from  superstition,  maintains.  Those 
who  call  ConstanLine  the  first  Christian  Emperor,  mean  no  more  thiin,  that  ho 
was  the  first  of  the  Emperors  who  regarded  Christianity  as  the  only  true  and 
divine  religion.  This,  Constantine  might  do,  and  yet  act  very  dilVe-  [p.  9G6.] 
rently  from  what  a  Ciiristian  ought  to  do. 

Secondly :  Learned  men  who  doubt  of  the  religion  of  Constantine,  remark, 
that  it  was  only  at  the  close  of  life,  and  when  laboring  under  a  fatal  disease, 
(according  to  Eusebius,  de  vita  Constant.  L.  iv.  c.  61,  62.)  that  he  not  only  re- 
ceived baptism,  but  likewise  was  received  among  the  Catechumens  by  the  im- 
position of  hands:  from  which  they  conclude,  that  through  life  he  was  a  man  of 
no  religion,  but  at  last,  in  the  near  prospect  of  death,  that  he  might  not  appeal 
to  die  destitute  of  all  religion,  he  requested  to  be  enrolled  among  Christians. 
Very  many  spurn  at  this  reasoning ;  but  in  my  view,  it  deserves  serious  consi- 
deration. For  it  is  well  known,  that  the  whole  Christian  community  consisted 
of  the  Calechumens  and  the  Faithful.  If  then  Constantine,  during  his  whole 
life,  was  neither  a  Catechumen,  nor  one  of  the  Faithful,  and  only  a  little  before 
his  death  wa^  admitted  a  Catechumen,  and  subsequently  by  baptism  receiTcd 
among  the  faithful,  it  would  seem  to  follow,  that  he  lived  out  of  the  church 
until  the  end  of  life,  and  of  course  that  he  should  not  be  classed  among  Chris- 
tians. As  to  his  deferring  his  baptism  till  near  the  end  of  his  life,  the  fact  is 
certain,  not  only  from  the  testimony  of  Eusehius,  but  also  of  other  writers  of 
the  highest  character  and  authority,  Jerome,  Ambrose,  Socrates  Sozomen,  and 
others.  There  are  indeed  some  learned  writers  of  the  Romish  community,  e.  g. 
Baronius,  Ciampinus,  Schelstj-atus,  and  mnny  others,  to  whom  IMathew  Fur- 
wiann  joined  himself  a  few  years  since  (in  his  Ilistoria  sacra  de  baptismo  Con- 
stantini,  published  at  Rome,  1742,  4to.) — who,  relying  on  more  recent  and 
doubtful  authorities,  believe,  that  Constantine  was  initiated  with  sacred  rites,  at 
Rome,  by  Sylvester,  then  bishop  of  Rome,  in  the  year  324.  But  these  writers 
meet  with  little  credence  now,  even  in  their  own  church  ;  and  they  are  solidly 
confuted  by  various  writers,  among  whom  are  the  Romish  Cardinal,  Henry 
Noris,  (in  his  Ilistoria  Donatistar.  0pp.  torn.  iv.  p.  650  &c.)  Tillemont,  and 
others.  To  these  add,  one  who  has  neatly  and  carefully  summed  up  the  argu- 
ments on  both  sides,  and  who  pretty  clearly  shows  that  he  follows  those  that 
account  the  story  of  Constantine' s  baptism  at  Rome  as  a  mere  fable,  namely, 
Thomas  Maria  Mamachius,  (in  his  Origines  et  Antiq.  Christiaiu-e,  torn.  ii.  p.  232 
&,c.  Rom.  1750,  4to.)  That  Constantine  was  admitted  a  Ca/ec/juwc/z  at  Helen- 
opolis,  a  little  before  his  baptism,  is  learnedly  and  copiously  maintained  by 
Henry  Valesius^  in   his   notes  on    Eusobius^  (de  vita  Constant.  L.  iv.  c.  61 


462  Centurij  IV.— Section  7. 

p.  551.)  He  observes,  that  Eusebius  expressly  says  :  Constantinura  tune  primum 
manuum  impositionem  cum  solemni  praecatione  in  templo  Helenopolitano  sus- 
cepisse.  And  from  this  he  infers,  that  Constantine  was  thenars/  made  a  Cate- 
chumen. For,  as  appears  from  many  passages  in  the  early  writers,  the 
bishops  created  Catechumens  by  the  imposition  of  hands.  In  confirmation  of 
this  opinion,  Valesius  iiM>i,  that  no  where  in  the  life  of  Constantine  written  by 
[p.  967.]  Eusebius,  is  it  said,  thai  he  prayed  with  the  Catechumens,  in  the  church, 
or  that  he  received  the  Sacrament  of  Catechumens.  Yet  there  is  much  less  force 
in  this  argument,  than  in  the  former.  If  the  postponement  of  baptism  till  near 
death  was  the  only  difliculty,  it  might  easily  be  surmounted.  For  those  ac- 
quainted with  the  customs  and  opinions  of  the  early  ages,  well  know,  that 
many,  in  that  age,  purposely  deferred  baptism  till  near  the  close  of  life,  in  order 
to  go  perfectly  pure  and  immaculate  to  eternal  life :  for  they  supposed,  that 
baptism  purified  the  whole  man,  and  entirely  washed  away  all  stains  and  defile- 
ment from  the  soul.  And  that  Constantine  had  some  such  idea  in  his  mind,  is 
evident  from  Eusebius,  (de  vita  Constant.  L.  iv.  c.  61.  p.  557.)  where  he  says: 
Firmissime  credidisse  Imperatorem,  quaecunque  humanitus  peccavisset,  arcano- 
rum  verborum  efRcaci^  et  salutari  lavacro  penitus  esse  delenda.  And  hence  we 
find  numerous  instances  in  that  age,  of  great  men  who  deferred  baptism  a  long 
time,  and  even  till  their  dying  hour.  See  the  examples  collected  by  the  bro- 
there  Ballerini,  (Notes  to  Noris,  Hist.  Donatist.  0pp.  tom.  iv.  p.  651.)  by  Gian- 
none,  (Historia  civili  Neapolitano,  tom.  i.  p.  128.)  and  by  others.  In  addition  to 
this  opinion,  there  was  another,  which  had  equal  influence  to  cause  baptism  to 
be  delayed.  Most  of  the  doctors  taught,  that  a  protracted,  painful  and  difiiicult 
penance  was  necessary,  for  those  who,  after  baptism,  became  defiled  with  new 
transgressions  and  sins :  and  that  it  was  not  easy  to  obtain  the  forgiveness  of 
God,  if  when  once  purged  and  washed,  they  returned  to  their  old  pollutions. 
Moreover,  Constantine  himself,  in  his  address  to  the  bishops  just  before  his  bap- 
tism, (apud  Euscbium  loc.  cit.  c.  62.  p.  557.)  says,  that  he  had  formerly  intend- 
ed to  be  baptized  in  the  Jordan,  in  which  Christ  was  baptized  by  John.  And 
this  would  accord  with  the  superstition  of  those  times,  and  can  easily  be  believ- 
ed.— It  remains,  therefore,  only  to  inquire  whether,  in  fact,  Constantine  first  be- 
came a  Catechumen  a  little  before  his  death.  Valesius  and  those  who  follow 
him,  think  this  to  be  manifest  from  what  Eusebius  relates,  that  the  bishops  laid 
hands  on  the  Emperor  with  prayer,  at  Nicomedia,  just  before  he  was  initiated 
into  Christian  worship  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism.  And  it  is  true,  that  the 
Catechumens  were  made  such  by  prayer  and  the  imposition  of  hands.  But  it  in 
no  less  certain,  and  is  taught  in  many  passages  by  the  ancients,  that  persons 
who  had  long  been  Catechumens,  received  at  certain  times,  the  episcopal  impo- 
sition of  hands.  And  especially,  and  most  pertinently  to  our  inquiry,  the 
bishops  were  accustomed  to  lay  hands  on  the  Catechumens,  just  before  baptism, 
either  when  they  confessed  their  sins,  or  when  they  solemnly  execrated  the 
Prince  of  Hell,  or  renounced  the  Devil.  I  shall  pass  by  this  latter  imposition  of 
hands,  and  speak  only  of  the  former.  It  was  a  very  ancient  custom  of  the 
Church,  that  such  as  were  about  to  be  baptized,  should  previously  confess  their 
sins;  and   upon   this,   the   bishop  laid  his  hands   on  them  accompanied  by 


Constantino'' s  Conversion.  4G3 

prayer,  and  in  set  words  lie  imparted  to  them  God's  forgiveness  of  all  [p.  9G8.] 
their  former  sins.  Thus  Terlullian,  (de  bnptismo,  e.  20.)  :  Ii)gressuros  baptis- 
mum  orationibus  crebris,  jejuniis,  et  genicuUitionibus  et  pervigiliis  orare  oportet, 
et  cum  eonfcs.sione  omnium  retro  delictorum,  ut  exponant  eliam  baptismum  Jo- 
hannis.  The  testimonies  of  Avgnsline,  Socrates^  Gregory  Nazianzcn,  and 
others,  who  mention  this  ancient  custom,  might  easily  be  adduced.  Now  this 
alone  overthrows  the  whole  argument  of  Valesius  from  the  imposition  of  hands, 
viz. :  That  the  bishops  laid  hands  on  Constaniine,  before  he  received  baptism  ; 
and  therefore,  he  then  first  became  a  Catechumen.  For  persons,  who  had  been 
Catechumens  many  years,  when  the  time  of  their  baptism  drew  near,  were  cus- 
tomarily consecrated  by  a  renewed  imposition  of  hands,  after  confessing  their 
sins.  And  that  Eusebius,  when  treating  of  the  baptism  of  Constant'nie,  speaks 
of  that  imposition  of  hands  which  followed  a  confession  of  sins,  and  not  of  that 
by  which  persons  were  made  Catechumens,  is  so  manifest  from  his  language, 
that  nothing  could  be  more  clear.  He  says :  Genu  flexo  humi  procumbens 
(Imperator)  veniam  a  Deo  supplex  poposcit,  peccata  sua  confitens,  in  Martyrio, 
(in  seeking  baptism,  therefore,  Constaniine  followed  the  ancient  custom  of  the 
Church,  and  publicly  confessed  his  sins  :  and  this  act  of  piety  was  pertinently 
followed  by  the  imposition  of  hands,)  quo  in  loco  manuum  impositioncm  cum 
solemn!  precatione  primum  meruit  accipere.  But  this  passage,  I  perceive,  will 
not  satisfy  the  more  difficult :  for  they  will  say,  that  Eusehius  distinctly  tells 
us,  that  Constaniine  then  first  {Tpurov)  received  imposition  of  hands.  And  aa 
it  may  thence  be  inferred,  that  Constaniine  had  never  before  received  imposition 
of  hands,  they  will  contend,  that  he  had  never  been  admitted  to  the  class  of 
Catechumens :  because,  as  before  stated.  Catechumens  were  created  by  the  im- 
position of  hands.  Not  to  protract  the  discussion  needlessly,  I  will  grant,  that 
the  word  TrpcJTov  in  this  passage  of  Eusehius,  is  to  be  taken  in  so  strict  a  sense 
as  to  place  it  beyond  controversy,  that  Conslanline  had  never  before  received 
imposition  of  hands.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  I  will  demand  of  these  learned 
men  to  prove,  that  this  practice  of  the  ancient  Christians  of  creating  Catechu- 
mens by  the  imposition  of  hands,  was  not  only  received  throughout  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  but  also  that  it  was  every  where  regarded  as  so  sacred  and  so  ne- 
cessary, that  no  one  could  be  accounted  a  Catechumen,  unless  he  had  been  as  it 
were  consecrated  by  that  ceremony.  Most  of  the  testimonies  to  this  practice, 
come  to  us  from  the  Latin  writers ;  while  the  Greeks  who  notice  it,  are  very 
few,  and  quite  recent  authors.  Therefore,  it  might  be  that  the  Latin  Church 
consecrated  Catechumens  in  this  manner,  but  not  likewise  the  Greek  and  Orien- 
tal Church.  But  suppose,  that  the  Greek  and  Oriental  Christians  did  also  use 
this  rite  ;  who  does  not  know,  that  practices  of  this  kind,  which  depend  [p.  969.] 
on  custom  rather  than  on  established  law,  are  not  observed  invariably,  but  are 
frequently  neglected  or  omitted  for  various  reasons? — But  I  will  settle  the  point 
at  issue  in  a  shorter  way.  The  things  stated  by  Eusehius,  relative  to  the  life 
and  conduct  of  Conslanline,  put  it  beyond  all  controversy,  that  he  had  previ- 
ously been  a  Calechumen.  For  he  constantly  performed  all  the  duties  of  a 
Christian  man  not  yet  baptized,  or  of  a  Catechumen ;  he  attended  on  the  reli- 
gious worship;  he  gave  himself  to  fasting  and  prayer;  he  celebrated  the  Lord's 


464  Century  IV.—Section  7. 

Days,  and  the  days  consecrated  to  the  memory  of  the  martyrs :  and  he  watched 
througli  the  night  on  the  vigils  of  Easter.  I  omit  some  other  things.  And  on 
the  other  hand,  he  allowed  himself  to  be  excluded  from  those  things,  to  which 
Catechumens  were  not  admitted.  For  in  his  speech  before  his  baptism,  (apud 
Eiisebium,  de  vita  Constant.  L.  iv.  c.  62.  p.  557.)  he  testifies,  that  he  had  beer, 
partaker  in  the  common  prayers;  but,  of  course,  not  in  the  sacred  supper. 
And  therefore,  nothing  more  can  be  inferred  from  the  language  of  Eusebius, 
than  that  he  had  not  been  admitted  into  the  class  of  Catechumens,  by  that 
solemn  rile,  the  imposition  of  hands  with  prayer.  And  who  can  deem  it  strange, 
that  such  a  man  as  Comlantine,  was  not  treated  in  the  common  manner"?  And 
as  he  faithfully  performed  all  the  duties  of  a  Catechumen,  what  need  was  there 
of  subjecting  him  to  all  the  rules  and  regulations  for  plebeians  ?  The  very 
learned  Valesius  admits  the  zeal  of  Constaniine  in  performing  all  the  duties  in- 
cumbent on  iinbaptized  Christians  :  and  he  says,  we  may  hence  infer,  that  the 
Kmperor  was  a  Chrislian,  but  not  that  he  was  a  Catechumen.  How  do  excel- 
lent men,  sometimes,  deceive  both  themselves  and  others  !  Could  any  man  in 
that  age  be  a  Christian,  yet  not  be  a  Catechumen?  All  the  members  of  the 
Church,  were  either  the  Faithful,  or  the  Catechumens :  and  the  Christians  knew 
of  no  intermediate  or  third  class.  That  Constantine  was  not  one  of  the  Faith- 
ful until  near  the  close  of  life,  is  most  certain  :  if  therefore  he  was  not  a  Cate- 
chumen, how  could  he  be  a  Christian  ? 

Lastly:  The  learned  men  who  impugn  the  personal  religion  of  Constantine^ 
endeavor  to  show,  from  the  history  of  those  times,  that  it  was  his  lust  for 
reigning  that  induced  him  to  feign  himself  a  Christian ;  or,  that  he  sought  to 
open  his  way  to  supreme  power  by  a  feigned  profession  of  Christianity.  But 
this  is  preferring  conjectures,  and  those  too  of  little  plausibility,  before  reliable 
records  of  facts  and  testimony.  If  1  may  be  allowed  to  speak  of  myself,  I  have 
read  and  pondered  the  history  of  those  times,  with  all  the  diligence  I  could,  and 
yet  I  never  could  discover  that  the  Christian  religion  ever  did,  or  could  aid  and 
further  his  desire  to  reign  without  an  associate,  which  desire  I  admit  was  very 
ardent.  He  had  reigned  prosperously  and  with  glory,  before  he  became  a  Chris- 
tian, or  while  he  adhered  to  no  religion ;  and  he  might  have  attained  the  su- 
[p.  970.]  preme  authority,  and  have  performed  great  achievements,  if  he  had 
continued  in  the  religion  of  his  ancestors,  or  persevered  in  the  worship  of  the 
Gods.  In  the  first  place,  nothing  can  be  inferred  from  his  wars  against  Maxen- 
tius  and  Maximin,  to  prove  him  a  dissembler  in  this  grave  matter  of  religion. 
If  Constantine  had  unjustly  commenced  aggressive  wars  against  Maxentius  and 
Maximin,  and  had  chiefly  used  the  assistance  of  the  Christians  to  oppress  his 
colleagues,  there  might  arise  a  strong  suspicion  that  he  dissembled,  as  to  Chris- 
tianity, from  motives  of  ambition.  But  the  justice  of  his  wars  against  both 
Maxentius  and  Maximin,  is  not  denied  even  by  his  enemies;  and  it  is  placed 
beyond  all  dispute,  by  the  whole  history  of  those  times.  Moreover,  the  army 
which  he  conducted  from  Gaul  into  Italy  against  Maxentius,  as  we  shall  soon 
Bhow  from  Zosimus,  was  not  composed  of  Christians,  but  principally  of  barba- 
rians and  worshippers  of  the  Gods.  And  of  a  similar  character  was  the  army 
with  which  Licinius  encountered  Maximin.    These  wars,  therefore,  cannot  bo 


Constantlnc^ s   Conversion.  4C5 

adduced  to  prove  his  ambition;  .ind  much  less  .ire  thoy  evidence  of  1h.it  im- 
pious tricivcry  w  ith  wliii-ii  lie  is  cliarged.  And  if  nny  one  sIuiU  niaiiitaiii,  that 
afier  the  concjucst  of  Maxertliits,  Constantine  showed  himself  so  just  and  kind 
to  the  Christians,  for  tlic  sake  (»f  aceompIishin<j,  hy  their  aid  and  friendship, 
those  proud  designs  which  he  meditated,  he  will  bring  i'orward  a  suspit-ion, 
which  is  unsupported  by  testimony  or  by  any  other  proof,  and  a  suspicion  easily 
confuted.  The  man  who  liarbors  such  a  suspicion,  does  not  consider  that  Con- 
stanline,  after  his  victory  over  Maxenlius,  did  not  exalt  the  Christian  religion 
above  all  others,  and  decide  tiiat  it  is  the  only  true  religion;  but  he  merely 
gave  the  Christians  the  power  of  publicly  professing  iheir  religion;  and  thd 
6«me  liberty  he  gave  to  all  sects  and  all  rcl'gioiis,  with  no  c.\cc[)tions.  Neithe: 
does  the  man  consider,  that  the  woi-sliippers  of  the  Gods  were,  at  that  lime,  far 
more  numerous  than  the  Christians,  allhongh  there  were  Christians  everywhere. 
There  would  be  some  ground  for  this  ill  opinion  of  Coiislanline,  if  he  had  com< 
manded  all  his  subjects  to  follow  the  Chri-itian  religion,  and  had  endeavored  to 
extirpate  the  ancient  religion,  or  even  if  the  number  of  Christians  in  the  Roman 
empire  I'.ad  preponderated  over  others.  My  conclusion,  after  carefully  con- 
sidering all  the  facts,  is,  that  if  the  Emperor  had  wished  to  attain  to  supremo 
power,  by  the  aid  of  anj/  religion,  he  could  more  readily  and  more  easily  havo 
accomplished  his  wishes,  l)y  pretending  to  adhere  to  the  old  siiperslilion,  which 
was  favored  by  the  nmjority  of  the  citizens,  than  by  a  feigned  adoption  of  the 
new  religion,  which  was  odious  to  a  majority  both  of  the  soldiers  and  the 
citizens.  So,  likewise,  the  contests  between  Constanline  and  Licinius,  which 
cccurred  after  the  subjugation  of  Maxenlius  and  Maximin,  did  not  originate 
from  religion,  nor  werc  they  carried  on,  and  successfully  terminated  bv  the  aid 
of  religion.  And  I  confidently  affirm,  that  religion  was  serviceable  to  Comtatu 
tine,  in  no  one  of  liis  political  enterprises.  And  finally,  I  for  one  believe,  that 
the  judgments  of  the  cotemporary  writers  are  to  be  preferred  before  the  divina- 
tions, however  ingenious,  of  all  the  moderns.  Zosimus  and  Julian,  [p.  971.] 
both  shrewd  men,  and  well  acquainted  with  all  the  counsels  and  acts  of  Constan- 
tine, and  both,  also  his  enemies,  had  no  doubts  that  he,  in  good  faith,  passed  over 
from  the  religion  of  his  ancestors  to  Christianity:  indeed,  they  assign  causes, 
though  futile  ones,  for  this  defection.  These  men,  certainly,  did  not  lack  the 
means  of  discerning  the  truth  in  this  matter,  nor  the  disposition  to  publish  it: 
and  shall  we  account  ourselves  more  discerning  and  perspicacious  than  thoy, 
when,  after  so  many  centuries,  and  by  means  of  a  few  documents,  wo  sec,  us  it 
were,  through  clouds,  a  small  part  of  the  history  of  that  period? 

Although  I  suppose  that  Constantine  was  a  Christian,  that  is,  that  he  believed 
the  Christian  religion  to  be  the  only  true  religion,  during  a  great  part  of  liis 
life,  yet,  as  to  the  time  when  he  thus  embraced  Christianity,  I  disagree  with  tho 
common  opinion.  On  this  point,  nearly  all  follow  Eusehius,  (de  vita  Constant. 
L.  i.  c,  27.  p.  421.)  who  tells  us,  that  until  the  war  with  Maxenlius,  Coiislanline 
was  a  man  of  dubious,  or  rather,  of  no  religion.  And  this  I  can  easily  believe, 
for  it  accords  very  well  with  his  conduct.  But  when  he  was  about  to  march 
against  Maxenlius,  prompted,  undoubtedly,  by  a  sense  of  impending  peril,  he 
pondered  in  iiis  mind,  to  which  of  the  Gods  he  should  entrust  himself  and  hia 
VOL.  ir.  31 


466  Century  IV.— Section  7. 

fortunes.  Eusebius  says :  Cogitare  apud  se  coepit,  quoranam  si"bi  Dertm  adscJs» 
ceret.  In  this,  I  suppose,  he  acted  sincerely,  and  not  hypocritically.  The  result 
of  his  deliberations  was,  that  lie  determined  to  worship  the  one  God  whom  his 
liither  had  wor.shipped,  and  to  neglect  the  Romish  Deities.  The  grounds  of  this 
resolution,  in  addition  to  the  example  of  his  father,  who  worshipped  the  one 
God,  were  the  adversities  and  the  sad  end  of  Diocletian,  Maximian,  and  the  other 
Emperors,  who  had  sedulously  followed  the  religions  of  the  Gods.  These  rea- 
sons are  not  forcible,  nor  creditable  to  Conslaniine.  For  he  did  not  abandon 
the  Roman  Gods,  and  betake  himself  to  the  worship  of  the  one  God,  guided  by 
reason,  or  from  conviclion,  founded  on  the  numerous  arguments  which  the  light 
of  nature  suggests;  but  he  merely  followed  tlie  recommendation  of  his  father, 
and  his  hope  of  vanquishing  his  enemies  and  obtaining  a  prosperous  and 
splendid  reign.  For,  as  Eusebius  reports  from  his  own  mouth,  he  reasoned  in  the 
following  manner:  My  father  worshipped  the  one  God,  and  he  was  uniformly 
prosperous  through  life.  On  the  contrary,  tliose  Emperors  who  worshipped 
many  Gods,  after  u  series  of  calamities,  came  to  miserable  deaths.  Therefore, 
that  I  may  live  happily,  and  be  always  prosperous  in  this  world,  I  will  imitate 
my  father,  cind  connect  myself  with  the  worship  of  the  one  God.  The  man  who, 
by  such  reasoning,  is  induced  to  embrace  any  religion  whatever,  appears  to  me 
to  show  a  very  moderate  degree  of  religious  knowledge,  and  to  be  more  solicit- 
ous about  the  present  life  than  the  future.  And  besides  this,  there  is  another 
thing,  which  seems  to  me  to  detract  more  from  the  reputation  of  Constan- 
[p.  972.]  tine,  than  his  contempt  for  the  Gods  can  add  to  it.  Conslantine  did 
not  know  the  character  of  the  one  God,  whom  his  flither  had  worshipped,  and 
by  whose  aid  he  had  lived  prosperously  and  happily.  And  this  his  ignorance, 
Eusebius  does  not  conceal.  For  he  says,  (de  vita  Const.  L,  i.  c.  28.  p.  410.) 
that  the  Emperor:  Obsecrasse  Deum  ilium,  ut  se  ipsi  noscendum  prpeberet.  He 
therefore  did  not  know,  how  fir  the  power  and  influence  of  his  father's  God  ex- 
tended, or  with  what  attributes  he  was  invested.  It  is  manifest,  both  from 
other  sources  and  from  the  citations  soon  to  be  made  from  his  edicts,  that  Con- 
stantine  did  not  regard  this  God  of  his  father  as  being  that  supreme  and  only 
author  and  creator  of  all  things,  whom  the  Christians  adored  as  a  God  of  infinite 
majesty  and  power,  but  only  as  a  God  of  finite  or  limited  powers;  yet,  as  more 
benignant,  efficient,  and  pow^erful,  than  all  the  Roman  and  Grecian  Gods.  For  a 
considerable  time,  therefore,  Conslaniine  was  (in  modern  phrase)  a  Deist ;  and 
one  of  the  lowest  and  most  ignoble  class,  worshipping  a  single  God,  of  whom 
he  had  no  determinate  conceptions.  But  not  long  after  this,  if  we  believe  Eu- 
sebius, he  obtained  more  light.  For,  as  he  was  marching  with  his  army  against 
Maxentius,  at  mid-day,  he  and  his  whole  array  saw  in  the  clouds,  that  celebrated 
Monogramm  of  the  name  Christ,  or  the  sign  of  the  cross,  with  the  inscription : 
Tovrct  vix-a.  Hac  vince.  See  Eusebius,  (de  vita  Const.  L.  i.  e,  28.  p.  422.)  Of 
this  celebrated  vision,  we  shall  treat  formally  hereafter.  But  this  divinely  ex- 
hibited image  did  not  remove  all  clouds  from  his  mind,  or  explain  to  him  that 
God  of  his  father,  whom  he  was  desirous  to  know.  Says  Eusebius,  (de  vita 
Const.  L.  i.  c.  29.  p.  422.):  Addubitare  ccepit,  quidnam  hoc  spectrum  sibi  vellet. 
This  celestial  vision,  therefore, — and  I  would  have  it  particularly  noticed,  did 


Constantine's  Conversion.  4G7 

not  profit  him  at  all.  The  prodii^y  needed  an  interpreter;  and  this  function 
Christ  liimself  assumed.  For  on  the  fbliowinir  ni<j;'ht,  he  npj)eared  to  him  in  a 
dream,  with  the  sign  which  had  been  shown  him  in  the  heavens,  and  directed 
him  to  make  a  military  standard,  in  the  form  of  that  sign,  and  to  use  it  in  his 
battles.  (Ibid.  c.  29.  p.  422.)  The  Emperor  obeyed  this  command,  and  forth- 
with caused  a  standard  to  be  made,  resembling  the  sign  which  he  had  seen  both 
waking  and  sleeping;  and  he  afterwards  had  it  carried  before  his  armv  in  all  his 
battles.  Constantine,  therefore,  noiv  knew  wliat  God  he  ought  to  worship.  And 
yet,  what  is  very  strange,  although  he  had  long  been  well  acquainted  with  Chris- 
tian atriu'rs,  and  been  conversant  with  Christians  so  many  years,  he  did  not  know 
what  a  God,  the  being  called  Christ  was;  nay,  he  did  not  understand  the  im- 
port of  the  vision.  Says  Eusehius,  (de  vita  Const.  L.  i.  c.  32.  p.  423.):  Kai  t\s 
tin  Qtdi  yipcjTa,  rif  rt  o  thj  op3-eiV»ff  o-^ius  tow  (rn/uiiou  xoyos.  Interrogabat,  quis- 
nam  ille  Deus  esset,  quidve  signi  illius  visio  sibi  vellet.  And  yet,  as  Eusehius 
had  just  before  said  distinctly,  Christ  himself  had  conversed  with  Consiantine  in 
his  sleep,  and  had  taught  him  the  meaning  of  the  vision.  Therefore  Consiantine 
sent  for  priests  of  the  Christian  religion ;  and  when  he  had  learned  [p.  973.] 
from  them  the  character  of  the  God  whom  he  had  seen,  and  the  power  of  that 
sign,  he  betook  himself  to  reading  the  sacred  books  of  the  Christians,  with  the 
assistance  of  the  priests:  and  he  now  firmly  decided,  that  Christ  alone  was 
worthy  of  worship  and  adoration.  (Ibid.  c.  32.  p.  423  &c.)  The  series  of  the 
narration  in  Eusehius,  puts  it  beyond  controversy,  that  all  this  occurred  in 
Gaul,  before  Constimtine  had  passed  the  Alps  with  his  army,  to  encounter  Max- 
entius.  And  Eusehius  expressly  says,  (loc.  cit.  c.  32.  p.  424.) :  Post  hccc  (after 
all  ahoxe  staled,)  munitus  spe  bona,  quam  in  illo  (Christo)  collocaverat,  tyran- 
nici  furoris  {Maxentii)  incendium  restinguere  aggressus  est.  Therefore,  ac- 
cording to  this  author,  Constajitine  wcis  already  a  Christian,  when  he  determined 
on  the  war  against  Maxentius;  as  a  Christian,  he  marched  into  Italy;  relying 
on  the  aid  of  Christ,  he  fought  with  Maxentius;  and  to  Christ  he  attributed  his 
victory;  and  lastly,  after  his  triumph,  he  manifested  his  gratitude  to  his  Pre- 
server, by  enacting  laws  in  favor  of  the  Christians.  That  a  large  part  of  this  is 
true,  I  do  not  doubt.  For,  as  Consiantine  issued  his  liberal  edicts  in  favor  of 
the  Christians,  immediately  after  his  victory  over  Maxentius,  he,  doubtless,  was 
then  more  favorably  disposed  towards  the  Christians  than  previously;  and  he 
must  be  supposed  to  have  attributed  his  victory  to  Christ.  And  yet  these  very 
edicts,  which  evince  his  good  will  to  the  Christians  and  his  reverence  for  Christ, 
at  the  same  time  prove,  that  all  the  things  stated  by  Eusehius  could  not  he  true, 
and  they  show,  that  Consiantine  was  not,  at  that  time,  a  Christian,  except  in  the 
lowest  sense.  For  while  he  believed  Christ  to  be  a  God,  he  did  not  believe  him 
to  be  the  supreme  God  who  controls  all  things;  nor  did  he  consider  the 
Christian  religion  to  be  the  only  way  of  attaining  salvation,  but  only  a  good  and 
useful  one,  and  more  safe  than  the  other  religions.  That  I  may  not  be  thought 
to  speak  unadvisedly,  I  will  cite  the  Emperor's  own  language,  in  his  second 
edict  in  favor  of  the  Christians,  preserved  by  Lactantius,  (de  mort.  perseq.  c.  48.) 
Eusehius,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  x.  c.  5.)  and  others:  Hajc  ordinanda  esse  credidimus, 
ut  daremus  et  Christianis  et  omnibus  liberam  potestatem  sequcndi  religioncm, 


4G8  Century  IV.— Section  7. 

quain  qnisque  voluisset:  quo,  quicquid  divlnitatis  in  sede  coelcsti,  (o,  riitori  Irrt 
3-«;oT«TefK«/ot//>ai'toyT/)u).;Maros,)  nobis  atquc  omnibus,  qui  sub  potestate  nostra 
sunt  constitiiti,  plae;itum  ae  propltium  posslt  existere.  Tiic  reason  why  the  Em- 
peror eont-lnded  to  allow  all  the  cilizen^,  and  among  them  the  Christians,  liberty 
to  fnllow  what  religion  they  chose,  was,  that  he  and  all  the  citizens  might  have 
all  the  Gods  resident  in  the  celestial  77iansion,  propitious  aiid  friendly  to  them. 
And  therefore,  at  the  time  Constanline  issued  this  edict,  he  believed, — I.  That 
there  are  many  Gods,  in  the  celestial  mansion. — II.  Among  the  Gods  dwelling^ 
in  the  celestial  mansion,  Christ  is  one. — III.  His  own  safety,  and  that  of  the 
citizens  and  of  the  whole  republic,  required,  that  all  these  Gods,  and  Chri.st 
among  the  rest,  should  be  propitious  and  friendly  to  the  Romans. — IV.  Among 
these  Gods,  were  the  Gods  then  worshipped  by  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and 
[p.  974.]  particularly  by  the  Romans. — V.  And  therefore  all  these  Gods,  as  well 
ns  Christ,  ought  to  be  honored  and  worshipped,  lest  they  should  be  offended  and 
become  hostile  to  the  republic. — From  all  which,  it  clearly  follows, — VI.  Tiiat 
the  form  of  religion  approved  by  Christians,  was  a  useful  and  good  one: — yet 
VII.  The  religions  of  ;ill  the  Gods,  also,  had  their  value:  and  therefore, — VIII, 
All  the  religions  of  all  the  Gods,  were  to  be  tolerated  and  treated  with  respect, 
notwithstanding  they  were  perhaps  not  all  of  equal  excellence  and  dignity.  A 
little  after,  in  the  same  edict,  a  sentence  occurs,  in  which  the  same  views  are  ex- 
pressed in  terms  a  little  varied:  Credidimus,  ut  nuUi  omnino  fjicultatem  abne- 
gandam  putaremus,  qui  vel  observationi  Christianorura,  vel  ei  religioni  mentcm 
Buam  dederet,  quam  ipse  sibi  aptissimam  esse  sentiret,  ut  possit  nobis  summa 
divinitas,  (rd  ^-tlov,)  cujus  religioni  liberis  mentibus  obseqnimur,  in  omnibus  so- 
litum  sunm  favorem  atque  benevolentiam  prtestare.  The  summa  divinitas, 
(to  d-tlovf)  whose  favor  the  Emperor  here  deems  necessary  to  him,  is  not  the 
one  supreme  God  ;  but  the  phrase  must  be  explained  in  accordance  with  what 
precedes  it:  and  hence,  the  summa  divinitas  is,  what  Constantine  had  denomi- 
nated, Quiequid  diiinitatis  in  sede  ccelesii  est.  What  he  subjoins,  viz.  that  he  and 
his  colleague,  Hujus  divlnitatis  religioni  liberis  mentibus  obsequi,  deserves  special 
attention.  What  does  the  declaration  mean  ?  As  the  summa  divinitas  is  ex- 
plained by  Constantine  to  include  all  the  Gods  in  the  celestial  mansion,  or  quic' 
quid  divinitatis  in  sede  coelesti  est,  it  must  be  evident,  that  these  words  can  have 
no  other  meaning  than  the  following:  We.  the  Emperors,  serve  all  the  God» 
liberis  mentibus,  both  the  ancient  Gods,  and  him  whom  the  Christians  worship; 
that  is,  we  confine  ourselves  exclusively  to  no  one  religion,  but  we  favor  them 
all:  but  to  our  citizens,  we  give  the  liberty  of  selecting  from  among  those  re- 
ligions, that  which  they  think  to  be  the  best. — How  far  are  these  views  from 
those  of  a  true  and  perfect  Christian?  And,  if  the  religious  character  of  Con- 
stantine is  to  be  learned  from  his  public  edicts,  how  greatly  do  the?/  mistake,  who 
suppose  that  after  vanquishing  Maxentius,  he  forsook  the  Gentile  religions,  and 
embraced  the  Christian  as  being  the  only  true  religion  ?  There  is  not  one  of  all 
the  laws  enacted  by  Constanline,  during  the  first  years  after  the  victory  over 
Maxentius,  which  is  not  easily  explained  in  accordance  with  the  views  we  have 
attributed  to  him.  He  conferred  precious  privileges  and  favors  on  the  Christians 
and  their  priests,  he  spoke  respectfully  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  he  denomi- 


Cons  tan  tineas    Conversion.  4G9 

na(ed  the  church  very  holy  nnd  Catholic.  But  jvll  this  n  man  might  do,  who  ap- 
proved of  the  Christian  religion,  esteeming  it  holy  and  good,  and  yet  did  not 
consider  the  other  religions  as  false,  and  to  bo  abandoned.  And  there  is  no  ono 
of  liis  laws,  for  several  years,  from  which  it  may  be  clearly  inferred,  that  Con- 
stantini  held  Christ  to  be  the  Saviour  of  mankind,  and  his  Saviour,  and  that  ho 
disapproved  altogetiier  the  religions  of  the  Gods.  With  his  edicts,  which  [p.  975.] 
»how  his  mind  to  be  fluctuating  among  various  religions,  his  conduct  is  coinci- 
dent; and  some  of  his  acts  could  not  have  proceeded  from  a  truly  Christian 
man.  His  laws  tolerating  soothsayers,  provided  they  practised  their  arts  openly, 
enacted  in  the  seventh  and  ninth  years  after  his  victory  over  Maxentins,  are  well 
known.  (See  the  Codex  Theodosianns,  L.  ix.  Tit.  xvi.  Leg.  1,  2.  and  L.  xvi. 
Tit.  X.  Log.  1.)  Although  Gothofred,  Tillemonl,  and  others,  labor  to  extenuate 
the  bnseness  of  these  laws,  yet  they  do  not  prevent  its  appearing,  that  Constan- 
tine  had  not  then  wholly  abandoned  the  old  Romish  religion,  and  settled  down 
in  the  profession  of  Christianity  alone.  Neither  do  I  see,  why  Zosimus  should 
be  charged  with  falsehood,  when  he  states,  (Lib.  ii.  p.  103.  edit.Oxon.  1679.  8vo.) 
that  Conslantine,  long  after  his  dominion  was  established,  listened  to  soothsay- 
ers, and  put  confidence  in  them.  And  I  suppose,  the  same  Zusi7niis  does  not 
impose  on  the  succeeding  :iges,  when  in  the  same  place  he  says,  that  the  Em- 
peror, even  after  Licinius  was  shiin,  Patriis  (the  Roman)  sacris  usum  esse,  non 
honoris  quidcm,  sed  necessitatis  caussa;  L  e.  lest  the  Roman  people  should  take 
offence.  For  just  so  ought  an  Emperor  to  do,  who  had  publicly  declared,  that 
he,  Liherd,  mente,  omnis  divinitatis  in  coelesii  sede  versantis  religione  obseqid;  or, 
was  not  exclusively  devoted  to  any  one  of  the  religions  then  known  in  the  Ro- 
man empire. — I  pass  over  other  acts  of  ConsLanline,  unsuitable  for  a  man,  who 
believes  no  religion  to  be  true  but  the  Christian. 

How  long  Constantine  retained  these  vague  and  undecided  views  of  religion 
and  religious  worsliip,  regarding  the  christian  religion  as  excellent,  and  salutary 
to  the  Roman  sl:ate,  yet  not  esteeming  the  other  religions  or  those  of  inferior 
Gods,  as  vain,  pernicious  and  odious  to  God ; — it  is  difficult  to  determine. 
Zosimus,  as  is  well  known,  reports,  (Historia,  L.  ii,  p.  104,  &:c.)  that  Constan- 
tine did  not  publicly  profess  Christianity,  r.nd  show  himself  hostile  to  the  Ro- 
mish sacred  rites,  until  after  the  slaughter  of  his  son  Crispus  and  his  wife 
Fausta;  which  truly  detestable  crimes  were  perpetrated  in  the  year  326.  The 
falsehood  of  this  statement,  as  well  as  of  the  cause  assigned  by  Zosimus  for 
the  Emperor's  change  of  religion,  I  shall  not  stop  here  to  prove  ;  for  it  has 
long  since  been  demonstrated  by  many  persons,  and  may  be  easily  substanti- 
ated from  the  laws  which  Constantine,  before  that  time,  enacted  for  the  benefit 
of  the  christian  religion.  And  yet,  in  my  opinion,  Zosimus  has  not  herein  err- 
ed so  grossly  as  learned  men  have  supposed.  For,  not  to  mention  that  the  error 
is  of  only  a  few  years,  who  can  wonder  that  a  man  who  understood  that  Constan- 
tine practised  the  Roman  worship  for  many  years,  and  did  not  hesitate  to  sacri- 
fice to  the  Gods,  notwithstanding  he  venerated  Christ  and  was  benignant  to  his 
worshipers, — should  thence  infer,  that  the  Emperor  went  over  to  the  Christiana 
at  a  later  period  than  was  commonly  supposed  ?  After  well  consider-  [p.  976.] 
ing  the  subject,  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  subsequently  to  the  death  of 


470  Century  IV.— Section  7. 

Licimius  in  the  year  323,  when  Constantine  found  himself  sole  Emperor,  he  he- 
came  an  absolute  Christian,  or  one  who  believes  no  religion  but  the  christian  to 
be  acceptable  to  God.  He  had  previously  considered  the  religion  of  one  God  as 
more  excellent  than  the  other  religions,  and  believed  that  Christ  ought  especi- 
ally to  be  worshipped:  yet  he  supposed  there  were  also  inferior  Deities;  and 
that  to  these  some  worship  might  be  paid,  in  the  mannei  of  the  fathers,  without 
fault  or  sin.  And  who  does  not  know,  that  in  those  times,  many  others  also 
combined  the  worship  of  Christ  with  that  of  the  ancient  Gods,  whom  they  re- 
garded as  the  ministers  of  the  supreme  God  in  the  government  of  human  and 
earthly  affairs]  From  the  year  above  named,  commence  those  laws  and  actions 
of  Constantine,  from  which  most  clearly  appear,  his  abhorrence  of  the  ancient 
superstitions,  and  his  wish  to  abolish  them  and  to  establish  every  where  the 
christian  religion.  Previously,  he  had  enacted  no  such  laws,  except  the  single 
one  for  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  day,  in  the  year  321,  which  partially  dis- 
closed the  designs  he  was  tnen  contemplating.  It  was  not  till  this  year,  (323,) 
that  all  persons  who,  on  account  of  Christianity,  had  in  preceding  times  been 
exiled  or  condemned  to  the  mines  and  the  public  works,  or  been  stripped  of 
their  property,  were  restored  to  their  homes,  their  liberty,  their  reputable  stand- 
ing, and  their  estates.  See  Eusebius,  (de  vita  Constant.  L.  ii.  c.  20.  p.  453,  occ.) 
And  it  was  at  the  same  time  he  prohibited  the  sacrificing  to  the  Gods,  which 
had  before  been  lawful ;  (Euseb.  loc.  cit.  c.  44.  p.  464.)  and  commanded  chris- 
tian temples  to  be  erected,  and  the  decayed  churches  to  be  repaired  and  enlarg- 
ed ;  (Ibid.  c.  46.  p.  465.)  But  the  strongest  and  most  certain  evidence,  that  his 
mind  was  entirely  alienated  from  all  worship  of  the  Gods  and  exclusively  de- 
voted to  Christ,  is  the  Address  he  sent  to  all  the  citizens,  on  the  falsity  and 
baseness  of  the  ancient  superstitions;  in  which  he  exhorted  all  people  to  re- 
nounce the  Gods,  and  to  worship  none  but  Christ.  This  very  pious  Address, 
worthy  of  a  christian  Emperor,  is  found  in  Eusebius,  (de  vita  Constat.  L.  ii.  c. 
48,  &c.  p.  466,  &c.)  These  edicts  were  followed  up,  in  the  last  years  of  his  life, 
by  actions  and  institutions  expressive  of  Constantine's  purpose  of  extirpating 
the  ancient  religions,  and  of  supporting  only  christiany.  For  he  commanded 
the  temples  of  the  Gods  to  be  every  where  demolished,  the  images  to  be  bro- 
ken,  the  treasures  and  goods  of  the  temples  (to  be  confiscated,)  and  the  sacri- 
fices to  be  discontinued.  See  Jac.  Golhofred.  ad  Codicera  Theodosianum,  (torn. 
vi.  P.  1.  p.  290.) 

As  I  suppose  it  to  be  certain  from  what  has  been  stated,  that  Constantine 
attained  gradually  to  a  correct  knowledge  of  religious  truth,  that  at  first,  and 
for  a  long  time,  he  was  only  a  semi-Christian,  but  afterwards  banished  all  su- 
perstition from  his  mind,  and  sincerely  embraced  Christianity ;  I  tlierefore  con- 
clude, that  the  statement  of  Zosimus,  (Histor.  L.  ii.  p.  104.)  is  not  to  be  wholly 
disregarded.  He  says,  that  after  the  death  of  Licinius,  a  certain  Egvptian  came 
to  Rome  from  Spain,  and  persuaded  the  Emperor  of  the  truth  of  the  Christian 
[p.  977.]  religion.  Zosimus,  undoubtedly,  did  not  fabricate  this  story;  for 
what  possible  motive  could  induce  him  ?  He  must  have  learned  it  from  those 
acquainted  with  the  events  of  those  times.  But  that  Egyptian  did  not  first 
bring  Constantine  to  entertain  high  and  honorable  views  of  the  christian  reli- 


Constaiit'uie  s    Conversion,  471 

gion,  for  such  views  he  had  long  entertained ;  but  he  purified  and  perfected  the 
Emperor's  ideas  of  Christ  and  of  the  christian  religion,  which  liad  before  been 
somewhat  corrupt  and  superstitious,  and  he  demonstrated  to  him,  that  the  wor- 
ship of  the  Gods  was  utterly  inadmissible.  On  apprc^hendiiifr  and  embracing 
these  views,  the  Emperor  took  on  him  the  patronage  of  the  christian  religion 
only.  I  venture  still  farther,  and  maintiiin,  that  there  is  not  a  total  destitution 
of  truth  in  the  statement  by  Zosimus  of  the  manner  in  which  Constantino  was 
led  to  desert  the  Romish  religion  and  attach  himself  to  the  christian,  notwith- 
standing  learned  men  have  pronounced  it  a  compound  of  calumnies  and  lies. 
Zii.simus  tells  us,  that  Constantino  demanded  of  the  flamens  of  the  Gods  a  lus- 
tration from  his  gross  crimes  in  regard  to  Licinius  and  his  own  wife  and  son  ; 
and  that  they  told  him  there  was  no  lustration  possible  for  so  great  ofTenceft; 
But  that  the  Egyptian  Christian  before  mentioned,  told  the  Emperor,  that  the 
Christian  religion  had  power  to  blot  out  all  sins,  and  to  free  those  who  embraced 
it  from  all  guilt.  And  therefore  he  willingly  embraced  so  convenient  and  useful 
a  religion.  I  admit,  that  in  this  narrative  there  is  not  a  little  of  ignorance,  of 
envv,  and  of  malignity:  and  yet  I  can  believe,  that  there  is  some  truth  at  the 
bottom  of  the  fable;  and  that  Constantine,  ni'ter  the  death  of  Licinius,  first  learn- 
ed, either  from  this  Egyptian  or  from  some  others,  that  Christ  has  made  expiation 
for  the  sins  of  all  7nen,  by  his  death  and  blood,  and  that  the  pardon  of  all  their 
sins  may  be  contidently  promised  to  all  those,  who  by  faith  become  partakers  of 
his  merits.  In  the  first  years  after  his  victory  over  Maxentius,  his  views  of  re- 
ligion generally,  and  of  the  Christian  religion  in  particular,  were  not  altogether 
sound,  and  they  differed  not  greatly  from  those  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans.  For, 
being  ignorant  of  the  nature  of  the  salvation  and  blessings,  which  Christ  has 
purchased  for  mankind,  he  supposed  Christ  to  be  a  God,  who  rewarded  the 
fidelity  and  assiduity  of  his  worshippers  with  happiness  and  prosperity,  in  the 
present  life,  and  inflicted  evils  of  all  kinds  on  his  contemners  and  enemi.^s.  Con- 
stantino himself  advances  such  ideas,  not  obscurely,  in  his  Rescript  to  Anulinus, 
(apud  Eusebium,  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  x.  c.  7.  p.  394.)  where  he  writes,  that  he  had 
noticed,  that  despising  and  depressing  the  worship  of  one  God,  had  brought  im- 
mense evils  upon  the  republic  and  the  citizens;  but  the  reception  and  observance 
of  it,  had  conferred  great  glory  on  the  Roman  name,  and  the  highest  hnppiness  on 
the  citizens.  At  that  time,  tiierefore,  he  measured  the  excellence  and  worth  of  differ- 
ent religions  by  the  temporal  benefits  they  conferred,  and  he  signified  his  appro- 
bation of  Christianity,  because  it  promised  most  advantages  to  the  Romans. 
Nor  does  Eusebius,  as  before  remarked,  deny  that  such  were  at  first  [p.  978.] 
Constantine's  opinions.  But  the  Christian  teachers  with  whom  he  conversed, 
gradually  removed  from  his  mind  this  great  error,  so  repugnant  to  the  nature  oi 
Christianity;  and  they  demonstrated  to  him,  that  Christ  had  not  purchased 
worldly  glory,  honors,  and  pleasures  for  his  followers,  but  had  obtained  of  God 
for  them,  the  pardon  of  all  their  sins,  and  the  expectation  of  eternal  salvation. 
And  thu'^,  having  learned  at  last  the  true  nature  of  the  Ciiristian  religion,  by  the 
aid  of  this  Egyptian  or  some  others,  he  was  able  to  perceive  more  dearly  the 
folly  and  deformity  of  the  ancient  superstitions;  and  therefore  sincerely  gave 
his  name  to  Christ  alone.  And  hence,  if  I  mistake  not,  arose  that  fable  of  Zosimus. 


472  Century  IV.—Section  7. 

(2)  The  story  of  Conslanline's  seeing  a  cross  in  the  heavens,  before  his  bat- 
tle with  Maxentius,  is  familiar  even  to  the  children  of  all  sects  of  Christians 
and  yet  it  lias  exercised  exceedingly,  very  distinguished  men,  who  had  the  full- 
est belief  in  the  divine  origin  of  the  Christian  religion.  And  first,  there  is  dis- 
pute as  to  tiie  time  and  place,  in  which  the  Emperor  saw  this  wonderful  sign. 
On  this  point,  there  are  two  opinions  among  the  learned.  Some  say,  he  saw  the 
vision  while  he  was  in  Gaul,  and  was  contemplating  a  war  against  Maxentius. 
These  follow  the  high  authority  of  Eusebius,  (de  vita  Constant.  L.  ii.  c.  28. 
p.  410.)  who  certainly  so  relates  the  story,  as  to  leave  the  impression,  tiiat  Con- 
stanline  determined  to  wage  war  with  Maxentius,  after  he  had  seen  this  cross, 
and  after  he  had  formed  a  military  standard  in  imitation  of  it.  For  he  says, 
(c.  30.)  that  the  Emperor  having  placed  the  sign  of  the  cross  before  the  soldiers, 
advanced  with  his  army,  (and  it  was  from  Gaul,  he  marched,)  to  restore  liberty 
to  the  Romans.  And  he  presently  adds,  that  in  all  his  battles  with  Maxentius, 
this  sign  of  the  cross  was  borne  in  the  front.  And  he  closes  his  narrative  of  the 
subject,  with  these  words,  (e.  32.  p.  424.) :  Fod  hcec,  (after  all  that  had  been  said 
of  the  vision  of  the  cross,  and  the  formation  of  the  Labarum  in  the  likeness  of 
it,)  munitus  spebona — tyrannici  furoris  incendium  restinguere  aggressus  est.  He 
therefore  determined  on  the  war  with  Maxentius,  after  he  had  seen  the  cross; 
and  that  determination,  all  the  learned  admit,  was  formed  in  Gaul.  What  has 
been  adduced  from  Prudeniius  and  others,  in  confirmation  of  this  opinion,  has 
much  less  weight,  and  may  easily  be  confuted. — But  others,  relying  on  the  tes- 
timony of  Lactantius,  (de  mort.  persequut.  c.  44.  p.  999.)  maintain,  that  this 
cross  appeared  to  Constantine,  at  the  siege  of  Rome,  A.  D.  312.  on  the  7th  of 
the  Kalends  of  November.  This  opinion  was  first  advanced  by  Steph.  Baluze, 
in  his  notes  on  this  passage  of  Lactantius:  and  he  was  followed  by  Anton.  Pagi^ 
Fabricius,  and  many  others.  And  it  is  difficult  to  say,  which  of  the  two,  Euse- 
lius  or  Lactantius,  is  most  to  be  credited.  The  brothers  Ballerini,  (in  their  Ob- 
[p.  979.]  servations  on  Noris,  Histor.  Donatistar.  0pp.  tom.  iv.  p.  662.)  have  as- 
suraed  the  office  of  arbiters  in  the  controversy ;  and,  in  order  to  reconcile  Lac- 
tantius and  Eusebius,  they  would  persuade  us,  that  Constantine  twice  saw  the 
cross  in  his  sleep, ^frs/  in  Gaul,  and  then  in  Italy,  just  before  the  decisive  battle 
with  ]\Iaxentius.  But  these  learned  men  will  not  meet  ready  credence,  since  it 
may  be  inferred  from  the  language  of  Lactantius,  that  Constantine  had  seen  no 
cross,  until  the  dream  which  he  describes.  I  will  dismiss  this  question,  which 
is  of  no  great  moment,  and  not  easily  decided;  and  will  proceed  to  consider  the 
tision  itself. 

Those  learned  and  sagacious  men  who  have  disputed  concerning  this  cele- 
brated cross  of  Constantine,  may  be  divided  into  two  classes.  For,  since  no  one 
can  deny,  that  the  Emperor  wished  to  be  regarded  as  having  actually  seen  that 
celestial  sign  called  his  cross,  and  moreover,  studiously  sought,  by  various 
means,  such  as  institutions,  medals,  declarations,  &c.  to  persuade  both  citizens 
ond  soldiers  of  the  reality  of  the  vision  ;  yet  there  are  some,  who  think  his 
honesty  in  this  matter,  may  be  called  in  question,  and,  indeed,  ought  to  be. 
Hence,  Some  regard  the  story  as  a  fable ;  and  they  conjecture  various  reasons 
for  the  Emperor's  fabrication  of  it.    But  others^  and  tliey  are  the  majority,  have 


Coiistantinc' s  Vision,  473 

no  doubts,  that  ComLantine  actually  saw  what  he  states:  yet  those  who  consti- 
tute this  party,  entertain  ditfercnt  views,  as  we  siiall  see  hereat'fer. 

The  first  who  raiilced  Constuntine's  story  of  the  cross  among  fables,  were 
the  Irionds  and  worshipers  of  the  Gods  living  in  the  century  in  wiiich  the  vision 
is  said  to  have  occurred,  Gclasius  Cijzicenus,  (in  his  Acta  Concilii  Nicaeiii,  L. 
i.  e.  4.  in  Harduin's  Concilia  toin.  I.  p.  351.)  says,  that  they  boldly  a-scrted,  that 
this  vision  was  to  be  placed  among  the  fabrications  intended  to  benefit  the 

Christians:  Touro   to  SiYiy>i/ua  to?j  /uiv    dTiVTC/f  fA  yd-Of  Xtvai  S'oau   Kal  vXaTUa, 

Hajo.  tota  narratio  infidehbus/a^wZa  ct  commentum  esse  videtur.  Against  these 
enemies  of  the  cross,  Gelasius  disputes  earnestly  ;  but  not  as  he  ought  to  do, 
by  adducing  testimonies,  but  solely  by  citing  examples  of  similar  visions;  which, 
if  true,  would  only  prove  that  this  vision  was  possible,  not  that  it  was  actual. 
Among  the  moderns,  so  far  as  I  knovv,  the  first  wlio  formally  denied  the  reality 
of  Constantine's  vision,  was  John  Hornbcck,  (in  his  comment,  on  the  bull  of 
Urban  VIII.  de  imnginibus,  p.  182.)  But  he  docs  not  employ  historical  argu- 
ments, nor  those  derived  from  the  natnre  of  things,  but  merely  theological  ob- 
jections. He  was  combatted  by  Henry  Noris,  (Append,  ad  Histor.  Donatist. 
Opp.  tom.  IV.  p.  662.)  After  Hornbeck,  very  learned  men  in  great  numbers, 
embraced  his  views.  See  Jac.  Oiselius,  (Thesaurus  numismat.  antiquorum, 
p.  463.)  Jac.  ToUius,  (in  LacLanlium  de  mort.  persequut.  p.  267.  ed.  Bauldrii.) 
Chris.  Thomasius,  (Observat.  Hallens.  tom.  i.  p.  380.)  Godfr.  Arnold,  and 
many  others  :  all  of  whom  pronounce  the  story  incredible,  and  tiierefore  deny 
the  validity  of  the  testimony  in  support  of  it.  But  while  they  rank  the  prodigy 
among  frauds,  they  disngree  as  to  the  kind  of  frauds  to  which  it  should  [p.  980.] 
be  assigned.  Some  suppose  it  was  a  pious  fraud  or  a  religious  wile,  devised  for 
recommending  and  confirming  the  Christian  religion:  while  others  prefer  to 
call  it  a  military  wile  or  sLratagem,  by  which  Constantino  sought  to  inspire  his 
soldiers  with  confidence  of  victory  and  heroic  valor  in  the  w;ir  before  them. 
Of  these  two  opinions,  the  first  has,  I  think,  no  probability  whatever ;  for,  at 
the  time  the  cross  is  said  to  have  appeared  to  him,  Constantine's  great  solicitude, 
most  certainly,  was,  not  to  establish  and  extend  the  christian  religion,  but  to 
vanquish  Maxentius.  Besides,  Constantine  was  not  then  himself  a  Christian  ; 
and  he  used  this  vision,  not  to  aid  the  Christians,  but  to  animate  the  soldiers. 
The  other  opinion  has  more  plausibility;  and  it  receives  some  countenance  from 
the  example  of  a  similar  artifice  employed  by  Licinins.  For  soon  afterwards, 
when  Licinius  was  about  to  engage  in  battle  with  Maximin,  he  pretended,  that 
an  angel  appeared  to  him  by  night,  and  taught  him  a  form  of  prayer,  which  if 
the  soldiers  should  repeat,  they  would  certainly  gain  the  victory.  See  Lactan- 
tius,  (de  mort.  persequut.  c.  46.  p.  1003.)  This  artifice  of  Licinius,  (for  what 
liberal  minded  man  will  presume  to  say,  it  was  a  true  vision  ?)  produced  a 
wonderful  effect  on  the  soldiers.  Saysi  Lactantius:  Crevit  animus  universis, 
victoriam  sibi  credentibus  de  coelo  nuntiatam.  Who  that  compares  tho 
two  prodigies, — the  cross  of  Constantine  and  the  prayer  dictated  to  Licinius 
by  an  angel, — does  not  at  once  suspect,  that  Licinius  copied  the  example  of  his 
coUe.igue  with  some  variation?  But  those  who  maintain  the  common  opmion, 
oppose  to  this  conjecture,  the  fact  that  Cons/an/ine  confirmed  his  testimony  by  an 


474  Century  IV.—Section  7. 

oath.  For  Eusehius  says,  (de  vita  Constant.  L.  i.  c.  28.  p.  410.)  that  Ccinstan- 
line  not  only  declared  most  solemnly,  that  he  actually  saw  the  cross,  but  he 
also  contirmed  his  assertion  by  an  oath  :  "O  px.  o  ts  re  Tria-'raxra/ueviu  tov  Koyoy. 
Who  can  hesitate  to  believe  the  Emperor,  a  Christian,  and  an  old  man,  calling 
God  to  witness  the  truth  of  his  declaration?  To  meet  this  argument,  the  op- 
posite side  quote  Zosimus,  who  has  recorded,  (Histor.  L.  ii.  p.  102.)  that  Con- 
stanline  ofLen  'perjured  himself:  Constantinum  saepe  pejerasse.  But  this  charge 
of  an  enemy,  in  this  case,  is  of  little  weight.  And  yet  I  could  wish,  Eusebius 
had  given  us  the  form  of  the  oath  used  by  the  Emperor.  For  it  is  well  known, 
the  word  opxof  was  also  used  for  a  mere  asseveration  ;  and  those  well  informed 
in  ancient  customs,  are  aware,  that  the  ancients  had  no  very  distinct  and  clear 
ideas  about  swearing,  and  at  times  placed  naked  assertions  among  oaths.  But 
besides  this  argument  from  the  oath  of  the  Emperor,  I  have  another,  which 
seems  to  free  him  from  the  suspicion  of  a  military  artifice,  and  to  support  the 
opinion  of  those  who  think  Constantine  really  saw  something  resembling  a 
cross.  ZosimuSj  who  is  certainly  good  authority  in  the  case,  tells  us,  (Histor. 
L.  II.  p.  86.)  that  the  army,  which  Constantine  led  against  Maxentius,  was  col- 
[p.  981.]  lected  among  the  barbarous  nations,  the  Germans,  the  Celts  &:c.  who 
at  that  time,  undoubtedly,  were  ignorant  of  Christianity,  and  worshipped  the  Gods 
of  their  ancestors  :  Collectis  copiis  e.\'  redactis  in  potestatem  barbaris,  et  Ger- 
manis,  et  aliis  Celticis  nationibus,  itemque  de  Britannia  coactis  militibus  -  -  ex 
Alpibus  in  Italiam  movebat.  Now  to  stimulate  such  soldiers  and  fire  them  with 
contidence  of  victory,  a  very  different  artifice  was  necessary.  If  he  had  told 
his  troops,  that  Mars,  or  some  other  among  the  Gods  with  which  they  were  ac- 
quainted, had  appeared  to  him  sword  in  hand,  and  had  assured  him  of  a  triumph, 
he  would  undoubtedly  have  awakened  their  courage.  But  what  influence,  I 
pray,  upon  barbarian  men,  ignorant  of  Christ,  would  a  speech  like  the  follow- 
ing, possess:  Take  courage,  fellow  soldiers!  We  shall  be  victorious;  fori 
have  seen  the  sign  of  a  cross  in  the  clouds ;  and  Christ  appeared  to  me  in  my 
sleep,  saying  that  under  the  guidance  of  this  sign,  I  shall  be  able  to  triumph 
over  the  enemy!  If  we  would  not  make  Constantine  a  great  simpleton,  we 
must  believe  that  he  would  adapt  the  fraud,  by  which  he  sought  to  animate 
them,  to  their  genius,  their  customs,  their  capacities,  and  their  opinions.  But 
this  vision,  which  learned  men  suppose  he  invented,  was  totally  opposite  to  the 
feelings,  the  habits,  and  the  sentiments  of  the  troops  which  he  was  leiiding  to 
battle ;  and  it  was  suited  to  impose  on  none  but  Christians. 

Those  who  acquit  Constantine  of  all  fraud,  and  suppose  his  vision  to 
have  been  a  reality,  differ  as  to  the  nature  of  that  vision.  The  majority  suppose 
that  he  saw  it  while  awake;  but  others  say,  it  was  in  his  sleep.  Both  adduce  in 
support  of  their  opinions  high  and  very  respectable  authorities.  Those  who 
maintain  the ^r.s/ opinion,  rely  especially  on  Eusebius,  who  says,  that  he  receiv- 
ed his  account  from  the  mouth  of  the  Emperor.  Yet  there  are  other  and  later 
writers,  (the  principal  of  whom  are  Philostorgius  and  Socrates,)  who  likewise 
state,  that  the  vision  was  addressed  to  the  bodily  eyes,  and  not  to  the  imagina- 
tion or  mind;  they  say,  that  Constantine  beheld  in  the  clouds  at  mid- day,  a 
column  of  light  in  the  form  of  a  cross.     These  testimonies  are  carefully  collect 


1 


Consiant'uics    Vision.  475 

ed  by  Jo.  Alb.  Fahricius,  (Diss,  do  cruce  Constant.  J  G.  Biblioth.  Gniecae  vol.  vi. 
p.  13,  &c.)  But  all  these  writers  appear  to  have  derived  their  information  from 
Eusebius:  and  therefure  to  him,  or  rather  to  Constantine,  whose  statements  he 
records,  the  whole  narrative  is  to  be  traced.  Eusebius  says,  (do  vita  Constant. 
L.  i.  c.  28,  29.  p.  410  &lc.)  tliat  he  heard  Conslanline  not  only  declare,  but  con- 
firm with  an  o;ith :  Horis  diei  meridianis,  sole  in  occasum  vergente,  sc  crucis 
tropaeum  in  coelo  ex  luce  conflatum,  soli  superposituni,  ipsis  oculis  vidisse,  cum 
hujusmodi  inscriptione  :  Hac  Vince  :  Illud  visum  militos  eliam  animadvertisse, 
quibus  einctus  erat :  Nescivisse  vero  se,  quid  hoc  spectrum  sibi  vellet :  At  se- 
quenti  nocte,  Christum  dormienti  apparuisse  cum  signo  illo,  quod  in  coelo  os- 
tensuni  fuerat,  praecepisseque,  ut  militari  signo  ad  similitudinem  ejus,  quod  in 
coelo  vidisset,  fabricato,  eo  tanquam  salutari  praesidio  in  praeliis  uteretur.  If 
this  narrative  is  true,  Constantine  h:id  two  divine  visions ;  the  one  in  [p.  982.] 
broad  day  light,  and  when  he  was  aicalce ;  the  other  the  night  following,  and 
when  he  was  asleep.  The  first  he  did  not  comprehend  at  the  time ;  but  the  lat- 
ter  dispelled  his  ignorance  and  doubts.  For  Christ  himself  interpreted  to  him 
the  mysterious  vision.  As  all  the  other  writers  lived  after  Eusebius,  and,  as 
appears  from  their  language,  transcribed  almost  their  whole  account  from  him, 
the  whole  story  rests  solely  on  the  fidelify  of  Constantine  and  Eusebius.  For 
though  Constantine  says,  that  his  soldiers  saw  what  he  saw,  yet  Eusebius  deriv- 
ed his  information  solely  from  the  Emperor,  and  he  names  no  other  witness. 
And  here  I  cannot  but  remark,  that  the  learned  men  who  confidently  aflirm,  that 
the  whole  army,  as  well  as  Constantine,  saw  this  wonderful  sign,  cannot  prove 
what  they  affirm,  from  the  language  of  Eusebius.  For  he  does  not  say,  that 
Constantino's  army  saw  that  cross,  but  merely  says :  Milites  omnes,  qui  ipsum 
nescio  quo  iter  facientem  sequebantur,  miraculi  spectatores  fnisse.  This  lan- 
guage, I  think,  is  better  and  more  correctly  explained  of  the/ew  men  who  were 
his  body  guards,  or  the  praetorian  soldiers,  that  accompanied  him  on  some  ex- 
cursion, than  of  his  whole  army.  As  for  Eusebius,  there  is  no  reason  at  all  to 
suspect  him  of  any  wish  to  deceive  his  readers,  or  that  lie  stated  any  thing  dif- 
ferent from  what  was  told  to  him.  He  certainly  had  no  reason  for  misrepresent- 
ing or  fabricating  any  thing  of  the  kind.  Indeed  there  are  some  things,  which 
seem  to  place  his  fidelity  in  this  narration  beyond  dispute.  First;  In  his  Eccles. 
History,  which  afforded  the  fairest  opportunity  for  introducing  so  important  a 
matter,  there  is  no  mention  of  it  whatever.  This  shows,  that  when  he  wrote 
his  History,  that  is,  prior  to  the  year  324,  he  was  ignorant  on  the  subject ;  and 
that  it  was  not  then  generally  a  subject  of  conversation.  Again;  In  his  life  of 
Constantine,  (L.  ii.  c.  28.)  he  frankly  acknowledges,  that  this  prodigy  seems  al- 
mcst  incredible ;  but  that  it  would  be  wrong  to  question  the  Emperor's  veraci- 
ty :  which  is  as  much  as  saying :  "  I  believe  the  facts  were  as  I  have  stated,  be- 
cause my  most  gracious  lord  bids  me  believe  them  :  but  if  another  person  had 
told  them  to  me,  I  would  not  believe  them."  A  man  wishing  to  deceive  or  me- 
ditating a  pious  fraud,  would  not  so  speak.  We  are  therefure  brought  back  to 
Constantine  only.  Shall  we  give  credence  to  this  august  witness,  or  shall  we 
disbelieve  him  ?  It  seems  almost  sacrilege,  to  charge  so  great  a  Prince  with 
guile  and  filschood  when  under  oath.     And  yet  he  was  but  a  man;  and  mo- 


47G  Century  IV. — Section  7. 

tives  for  his  using  deception  can  be  nnincd.  Constanline  was  a  ram  man,  and 
greedy  of  pn)ise  and  glory,  as  his  conduct  shows;  nor  do  his  friends  wholly 
deny  it.  I  therefore  think,  that  it  will  not  be  temerity  to  suppose,  he  added 
somewiiat  to  the  truth ;  and  perhaps,  he  changed  a  mental  and  nocturnal  vision 
into  a  daij  vision  wiih  the  bodily  eyes,  for  the  sake  of  appearing  (rreat  and 
favored  of  God,  in  the  estimation  of  the  citizens  and  particularly  the  bi- 
[p.  983. J  shops.  Nor  is  this  a  mere  naked  suspicion:  it  has  some  support.  For, 
coteinporary  writers  of  high  reputation, — to  say  nothing  of  more  recent  writers, 
— knew  nothing  of  that  day  vision  of  which  Constantine  speaks,  but  they  re- 
present the  whole  as  passing  in  a  dream.  Thus  Lactantius,  (if,  aa  I  suppose, 
he  was  the  author  of  the  book  de  morlibus  persequutorum,)  the  preceptor  of 
Crispus,  Constantine's  son,  and  no  less  intimate  and  in  confidence  with  the  Em- 
peror than  Eusebius,  tells  us,  (c.  44.)  that  the  Emperor  was  admonished  in  his 
sleep,  to  mark  the  shields  of  his  soldiers  with  crosses :  commonitus  est  in  quiete 
Constantinus,  ut  coeleste  signum  Dei  notaret  in  scutis,  atque  ita  proelium  commit- 
teret.  Fecit  ut  jussus  est,  et  transversa  littera  X,  summo  capite  circumflexo, 
Christum  in  scutis  notat,  quo  signo  armatus  exercitus  capit  ferrum.  This  man, 
therefore,  living  at  court  and  in  the  focus  of  light,  had  heard  nothing  about  a 
luminous  column  seen  in  broad  day,  and  bearing  the  inscription,  Hac  Vince. 
Neither  had  Rujinus  heard  any  thing  of  it;  for  he  likewise,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  ix. 
c.  9.)  speaks  only  of  such  a  dream.  If  the  vision  of  Constantine  had  been  pub- 
licly known,  and  if  the  Emperor  had  stated  to  others  what  he  stated  to  Eusebius^ 
how,  I  ask,  could  these  men  be  ignorant  of  a  thing  of  such  magnitude,  and  sub- 
stitute a  mere  dream  in  place  of  a  true  vision  ?  Whatever  conjectures  or  ex- 
ceptions we  may  form,  it  is  manifest,  from  this  disagreement  of  writers  of  the 
same  age  and  authorit}",  that  common  fame  reported  nothing  definitely  respect- 
ing this  vision,  and  what  some  supposed  was  a  day  vision,  others  considered  to 
be  a  dream.  What  inferences  may  be  drawn  from  all  this,  I  need  not  explain 
at  length.  Consider  also  the  inscription,  Hac  Vince,  which,  it  is  said,  appeared 
in  the  air  with  the  cross.  This  inscription  creates  so  much  difficulty  in  the  af- 
fair, that  the  more  it  is  considered,  the  more  certain  it  seems,  that  the  whoU 
was  a  dream. 

Those  who  think  this  vision  was  actually  seen  by  the  Emperor  with  his  wak- 
ing eyes,  are  again  divided  in  opinion.  The  majority,  following  the  example  of 
Eusebius  and  the  ancients,  place  the  vision  among  real  miracles ;  and  they  sup- 
pose God  intended  it  as  a  persuasive  to  the  Emperor  to  embrace  the  Christian 
religion.  But  some,  with  the  late  Jo.  All.  Fabricius  at  their  head,  place  this 
cross  of  Constantine  among  natural  phenomena.  They  suppose  that  the  Em- 
peror saw  a  solar  halo  encompassing  the  sun,  and  not  being  well  acquainted 
with  the  science  of  nature,  he  mistook  it  for  a  divine  prodigy.  The  deceased 
Fabricius  published  a  Dissertation,  (in  his  Biblioth.  Graeca,  vol.  vi.  p.  11,  &c.) 
in  which  he  displayed  this  ingenious  theory  with  great  fulness  and  erudition.  If 
all  that  Eusebius  has  reported  from  the  mouth  of  Constantine,  is  strictly  true, 
no  one  can  doubt  at  all,  but  that  this  cross  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  mighty 
power  of  God,  or  to  be  set  down  as  a  miracle.  For,  whence  could  come  those 
two  words,  Hac  Vince,  except  from  the  boundless  power  of  God  ?    But  if  we 


Constantlne^s    Vision.  477 

apiironch  this  intcrprctnlion,  we  encounter  so  many  and  so  great  flifTii'uUics,  that 
\\c  st.irt  b;ick  instinctively.  First :  AIiIioul,^!)  no  mortal  cm  pri'.si'ribo  limits  to 
the  divine  wisdom,  as  to  the  ways  in  which  God  shall  deal  wiili  the  men  [p.  9S4.] 
whom  lie  would  bless  and  reclaim  IVom  snj)erslition ;  yet  it  i^eL'rtain,  that  he  al- 
ways selects  the  more  sure-,  the  more  suitable,  and  the  more  manifest  ways,  in 
preference  to  the  duOiuiis^  the  obscure,  and  tiie  difficult.  Now  I  eau  clearly  per- 
ceive, (and  all  who  will  reflect,  must  agree  with  me,)  that  it'  God  intended  to 
produce  a  religious  reformation  in  Constantino  by  a  miracle,  he  could  have  done 
it  in  a  far  clearer  nnd  more  certain  manner,  than  by  placing  the  form  of  a  cross 
bafore  Ids  eyes,  tiie  meaning  of  which,  on  his  own  showing,  he  did  not  compre- 
hend. .Seco7?c?/y;  It  must  appear  strange,  nay  increc/Z/'/e,  to  all  men  of  sound 
winds,  that  God  should  make  the  victory  over  his  foes,  to  depend  on  the  sign 
of  a  cross  painted  upon  the  shields  of  the  soldiers.  This  surely  was  calculated 
to  beget  superstition  in  the  minds  of  the  ignorant  people,  and  to  establish  them 
in  the  worship  and  veneration  of  a  cross,  which  has  no  power  whatever  to  pro- 
duce, or  to  preserve  and  augment  true  religion.  More  holy  counsel,  undoubt- 
edly, and  more  accordant  with  both  reason  and  Chrisli.mity,  (I  speak  confident- 
ly :  and  I  think  all  good  and  Christian  men  will  agree  with  me,)  I  say,  God 
would  have  given  more  holy  counsel  to  Constantine,  if  he  had  directed  both 
him  and  his  soldiers,  to  forsake  their  superstition  and  impiely,to  worship  Chri-t 
and  with  devout  supplications  to  implore  his  aid;  nnd  on  such  eondi;ions,  had 
assured  him  of  victory.  But  from  such  a  direction  as  Ihe  following :  Inscribe 
the  form  of  a  cross  on  the  soldiers^  shields,  and  bid  them  carry  it  before  thejn,  and 
you  will  be  victorious,  what  could  result,  except  the  corrupt  opinion,  that  there  is 
a  supernatural  jyower  in  the  sign  of  a  cross,  and  therefore,  that  whoever  goes  into 
battle  protected  by  it,  will  be  victorious,  whether  he  is  a  good  man  or  a  bad  one, 
a  man  of  sound  views  or  superstitiou-j.  I  need  not  say,  that  if  God  had  wished 
to  prostrate  Maxentius  by  a  miracle,  he  could  very  easily  have  effected  his  ob- 
ject, not  only  without  a  cross,  but  also  without  any  battle  and  slaughter.  More- 
over,  no  one  will  deny,  that  the  miracles  and  visions  of  God  are  always  uspful; 
neither  can  he  needlessly  and  uselessly  change  the  laws  of  nature.  But  this 
mid-day  vision,  which  Eusebius  reports  from  the  mouth  of  the  Emperor,  was  aU 
together  rain  and  useless.  For,  as  the  Emj)eror  expressly  says,  neither  he  nor  bin 
soldiers  understood  what  it  meant.  It  was  therefore  necessary,  that  a  divine  ex- 
positor, the  Son  of  God,  should  explain  the  obscure,  and  consequently,  uselesi 
prodigy,  and  should  inform  the  Emperor,  in  his  sleep,  the  night  following,  that 
by  this  sign  God  intended,  to  lead  him  to  fabricate  a  military  standard  after  the 
form  of  that  celestial  sign.  Undoubtedly  God  foresaw,  that  Constantine 
would  not  understand  the  import  of  the  miracle  :  why  then,  did  he  not  show 
him  a  more  intelligible  and  certain  sign  ?  Was  it,  perhaps,  that  Christ  n)ight 
have  some  reason  for  appearing  to  the  Emperor  in  his  sleep  ?  The  dream  also, 
in  which  Christ  appeared  to  Constantine,  I  can  never  believe  was  divine.  For 
the  Son  of  God  would  have  addressed  the  Emperor,  in  a  very  different  manner. 
What,  I  ask,  did  he  say  ?  Did  he  exhort  Constantino  to  belicvo  and  to  strive 
after  holiness?  Did  he  bid  him  eschew  and  oj-pose  superstition  and  im- 
piety, rule  the  State  with  justice  and  wisdom,  repent  of  his  past  trans-  [p.  985.] 


478  Century  IV.— Section  7. 

gressions,  and  prefer  the  salvation  of  the  citizens  before  all  things  else?  Not 
one  of  all  these.  What  then  did  he  say"^  He  pointed  out  the  way  to  obtain 
a  victory ;  he  showed  Constantine  what  sort  of  a  military  standard  he  must  use 
in  his  battles.  Was  such  an  address  worthy  of  the  Savior  of  the  human  race, 
of  him  who  expiated  the  sins  of  men  by  his  death  ?  Was  it  worthy  of  the 
Author  of  peace  to  mortals,  who  would  have  his  followers  forgive  their  ene- 
mies? But  why  enlarge  ?  This  was  the  natural  dream  of  a  soldier  and  gene- 
ral on  the  eve  of  battle,  who  fell  asleep  while  ruminating  on  the  best  method 
for  obtaining  the  victory.  Let  us  beware,  lest  by  too  eager  defence  of  the  mi- 
racles told  us  by  the  ancients  in  their  age,  we  should  do  injustice  to  the  majesty 
of  God,  and  to  that  most  holy  religion  which  teaciies  us  to  subdue  ourselves, 
not  our  enemies. 

The  opinion  of  the  very  learned  man,  who  ingeniously  maintains  that  the 
cross  of  Constantine  was  a  natural  'phenomenon,  has  also  its  difficulties,  which  I 
have  not  sagacity  enough  to  remove.  First,  this  remarkable  man  himself  ad- 
mits, that  he  had  much  difficulty  with  those  Latin  words,  Hac  Vince,  which 
Constantine  said,  appeared  to  him  in  the  air  along  with  the  cross.  For  who,  I 
pray  you,  can  attribute  such  a  writing  to  mere  natural  causes?  To  surmount 
this  difficulty,  the  very  accomplislied  Greek  scholar  attempts  a  new  interpreta- 
tion of  the  language  of  Eusehius ;  who  tells  us  that  Constantine  stated,  that 
he  saw  the  the  trophy  of  a  cross,  >-/Ja9»  v  r«  avTcf  o-wv»?3-at,  \tyova-av'  tov  tw 
V  ix.a.  These  words  Valesius  renders :  Cu7n  livjusmodi  inscriptione :  Hac 
Vince.  But  the  learned  jPaJncms  would  have  us  translate  them  thus:  Eique 
adjiinctum  fuisse  picturam,  indicantem,  in  hoc  ipsi  esse  vincendum.  He  therefore 
supposes,  that  the  word  >/>ap«»  in  the  passage,  does  not  mean  an  inscription  or 
writing,  but  a  picture  or  figure.  And  he  supposes  Xeynv  to  be  equivalent  with 
to  signify  or  indicate.  And  iho.  figure  indicative  of  victory,  he  supposes,  was  a 
crown,  such  as  every  solar  halo  is.  And  it  is  well  known,  that  a  croivn  was  the 
sign  of  victory  among  the  ancients.  And  hence,  the  idea  of  this  distinguished 
man  and  his  followers,  is,  that  the  words  Hac  Vince,  were  not  written  on  the 
sky,  but  were  enigmatically  or  symbolically  expressed  by  the  figure  of  a  croivn. 
That  I  may  not  appear  punctilious,  I  will  admit  that  the  words  of  Eusehius  or 
rather  of  Constantine,  will  bear  this  interpretation.  But  1st,  how  obscurely  and 
poetically,  would  the  Emperor  have  expressed  himself  in  this  familiar  conversa- 
tion, if  he  had  used  such  terras  to  convey  his  meaning  to  Eusehius  ?  Suppose 
any  man,  wishing  to  tell  his  friend,  that  in  a  dream  he  saw  a  crown,  should  say,  he 
saw  a  figure,  which  signified :  conquer  by  this  ;  what  should  we  think  of  such 
a  man?  Certainly,  we  should  conclude  that  he  talked  in  enigmas,  and  did  not 
wish  to  be  understood  ;  for  he  would  violate  all  the  laws  of  familiar  discourse. 
2dly,  It  is  certain,  that  Constantine  did  not  v/ish  to  have  his  words  so  understood. 
For,  on  the  Laharums,  on  medals,  and  on  the  other  monuments,  he  would  have 
[p.  986.]  the  very  icords  Hac  Vince,  {tohtco  vUa,)  distinctly  written  :  which  is 
evidence,  that  he  wished  every  body  to  believe,  those  words  appeared  before  his 
eyes  in  the  air. — 3dly,  All  the  ancient  writers  so  understood  both  him  and 
Eusebius :  for  their  language  puts  it  beyond  controversy,  that  they  all  believed 
Constantine  to  say,  that,  not  a  croivn,  the  sign  of  victory,  but  the  very  words 


Constantinc's    Vision.  479 

Hac  Vince,  appeared  to  the  Emperor.  Besides,  another  difficulty  of  no  lesa 
magnitude  occurs.  Among  all  the  crosses  hitherto  observed  by  astronomers 
in  solar  halos,  there  has  not  been  one  similar  to  that  wiiich  Constantine  says 
he  saw :  so  that  an  example  of  such  a  natural  phenomenon  is  a  desideratum. 
From  Euscbius  and  from  the  medals,  it  is  most  manifest,  that  Constantine  did 
not  see  the  figure  of  a  true  cros^,  but  the  firsl  Greek  Idler  in  the  name  Christy 
ss.  X,  through  the  middle  of  which,  the  second  Icller  of  that  name,  ss.  P,  was 
drawn  perpendicularly,  thus :  A.  Now  such  a  figure  as  this,  has  never  been 
seen  by  any  astronomer.  I  may  add,  that  those  who  make  the  day  vision  a  na- 
tural occurrence,  cannot  suppose  the  nociurnal  vision  or  dream  which  followed 
it,  to  be  supernatural  or  divine.  For,  as  natural  phenomena  have  no  signilican- 
cy,  who  can  believe  thaf  God  undertook  to  instruct  Constantine  as  to  the  sense 
and  meaning  of  such  a  phenomena?  Those,  therefore,  who  believe  the  dream 
of  Constantine  was  sent  of  God,  must  necessarily  believe  that  the  preceding 
mid-day  vision  was  also  divine  or  miraculous. 

Finally,  to  give  frankly  ray  own  opinion  on  this  subject,  I  think,  if  there  is 
any  measure  of  truth  in  this  famous  vision,  (which  I  will  not  take  upon  me  to 
deny,)  it  all  pertains  to  the  dream.  But  Constantine,  a  long  time  afterwards,  to 
procure  for  himself  greater  influence  with  the  bishops,  and  to  gain  flie  reputa- 
tion of  being  in  high  f:ivor  with  God,  added  from  his  own  invention  all  the  rest ; 
and  Eusehius  recorded  the  whole  just  as  he  stated.  Such  frauds,  in  that  age, 
were  common  among  Christians ;  nor  were  they  deemed  unlawful.  Constan- 
tine, while  ruminating  on  the  perilous  war  with  Maxentius  in  which  he  was 
about  to  embark,  fell  asleep.  And  while  he  slept,  he  seemed  to  himself  to  be- 
hold Christ,  having  in  his  hand  that  Monogram  of  his  name,  of  which  Constan- 
tine retained  a  distinct  recollection,  and  promising  him  victory  under  the  guid- 
ance of  that  sign.  When  he  awoke,  he  supposed  he  had  been  divinely  taught 
the  way  to  obtain  the  victory,  and  that  he  ought  to  obey  the  vision.  Yet,  if 
any  one  prefer  the  supposition,  that  Eusehius  either  did  not  correctly  understand 
the  Emperor,  and  mistook  what  he  said  of  his  dream  to  refer  to  an  ocular  vision^ 
or,  purposely  added  several  things  to  the  Emperor's  statement,  I  shall  not  ob- 
ject to  his  retaining  such  a  supposition. 

§  YIII.  A  Short  Persecution  by  Licinius.  The  Roman  republic 
appeared  tranquil  and  liappy,  after  the  subjugation  of  Maxentius 
and  Maximin ;  but  soon  after  a  new  war  for  dominion,  [p.  987.] 
arose  between  Constantine  the  Great  and  his  colleague  Liciniiis^ 
to  whom  Constantine  had  given  his  sister  in  marriage.  But  this 
war  was  of  short  duration.  For  in  the  year  314,  Licinius  being 
defeated  in  two  battles,  at  Cibala3  in  Pannonia,  and  in  Thrace, 
was  compelled  to  sue  for  peace  with  his  kinsman.  But,  nine 
years  after  his  defeats,  this  turbulent  man,  who  wished  to  have 
no  associate  in  the  government,  both  from  his  own  choice  and  at 
the  instigation  of  the  Pagan  priests,  assailed  Constantine  with 


480  Century  IV.— Section  8. 

larger  and  more  powerful  forces,  in  the  year  S2i.  To  attach 
those  priests  the  more  to  himself,  Licinius  not  only  inflicted  very 
great  wrongs  upon  the  Christians  of  the  provinces  under  his 
government,  but  also  cruelly  put  to  death  not  a  few  of  their 
bishops.(')  But  fortune  was  again  adverse  to  him.  After  being 
defeated  in  several  battles,  he  had  no  resource  but  to  cast  himself 
on  the  clemency  of  his  conqueror;  and  Ae,  in  the  year  325,  for 
reasons  not  known,  ordered  him  to  be  strang^.ed.  After  this  vic- 
tory over  Licinius,  Constantine  reigned  sole  Emperor  all  his  life; 
and  he  strove  to  the  utmost,  by  his  counsels,  Jiis  laws  and  regu- 
lations, and  by  rewards,  to  extend  the  Christian  religion  over  all 
the  nations  he  governed,  and  to  depress  and  gradually  destroy 
the  religion  of  the  Gods  and  the  ancient  superstitions. 

(1)  Of  this  renewed  persecution  of  the  Christians  in  the  East,  by  Licinius, — 
rot  to  mention  others  who  touch  upon  it  cursorily,  Emebius  treats  professedly; 
(Hist.  Eccles.  L.  x.  c.  8  &c.  p.  396  &c.  and  de  vita  Constant.  L.  ii.  c.  3  «fcc. 
p.  444  &c.)  Among  those  who  touch  upon  the  subject  incidentinlly,  I  think  we 
are  to  place  Aurellus  Victor,  a  Roman,  in  whose  work  de  Ccrsaribus,  (c.  41. 
p.  435.)  these  words  occur:  Licinio  ne  insontium  quidem  et  nobilinm  philoso- 
phorum  servili  more  cruciatus  adhibid  modum  fecerunt.  Licinius  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  Philosophers ;  nor  can  ingenuity  devise  a  reason  why  he  should 
put  them  to  death.  Victor  must  therefore  refer  to  the  Christian  bishops;  who 
imitated  the  Greek  Philosophers  in  their  dress,  mode  of  life,  &:c.  nay,  as  is  well 
known,  often  assumed  the  name  of  Philosophers.  For,  many  of  these,  as  Euse' 
hius  testifies,  (ubi  supra,)  Licinius  cruelly  and  in  a  servile  way  put  to  death, 
both  personally  and  by  his  governors.  At  first,  he  showed  favor  to  the  Chris- 
tians; as  appears  from  the  edicts  in  their  behalf,  issued  jointly  by  him  and  Con- 
stantine, and  also  from  some  other  things.  But  when  he  resolved  on  a  second 
war  against  Constantine,  he  became  hostile  to  them;  and  this,  I  apprehend,  not 
fio  much  from  hatred  of  Christianity,  or  from  the  love  of  superstition,  as  from 
the  lust  of  power,  and  the  hope  of  subduing  Constantine.  For,  he  doubtless,  ex- 
pected, that  the  vast  niuititude  of  the  friends  and  patrons  of  the  ancient  religion, 
[p.  988.]  who  were  exceedingly  mortified  to  see  their  interests  continually  de- 
cline, and  those  of  the  Christians  flourish  and  enlarge  from  day  to  day, — would 
foin  his  party,  take  up  arms,  and  rush  heartily  into  an  intestine  war  against 
Constantine,  the  patron  of  Christians,  if  they  should  see  him  to  be  inclined  to 
oppress  the  Christians,  and  to  restore  the  ancient  religion  to  its  pristine  dignity. 
To  this  motive,  suggested  by  policy,  we  may  add  the  exhortations  and  promises 
of  the  Pagan  priests.  For  the3%  as  Eusebius  tells  us,  (de  vita  Const.  L  ii.  c.  4. 
p.  445.)  when  he  consulted  them :  Respondcbant  eum  victorem  hostium  et  superi- 
orem  in  bello  fore.  And  hence,  in  his  oration  to  his  soldiers,  (preserved  by  Eu- 
sebius, ibid.  c.  5.  p.  445,  446)  in  order  to  animate  them,  he  crafiily  insinuates, 
that  he  had  undertaken  the  war  to  avenge  and  vindicate  the  ancient  religion ; 


Licinius  Fersccutcs.  481 

and  he  promises,  after  gaining  the  victory,  to  wholly  exterminate  all  despiaera 
of  the  Gods.  For  hitherto  he  had  spared  the  common  Christians,  although  he 
had,  before  the  war  began,  put  to  cruel  deaths  the  more  grave,  venerable,  and 
excellent  of  the  bishops  in  his  provinces.  See  Eusehius,  (loc.  cit,  c.  2.  p.  444.) 
But  this  cruelty,  likewise,  did  not  so  much  proceed  from  a  hatred  of  the  religion 
taught  by  these  bishops,  as  from  policy,  and  the  desire  of  conquest.  For  he 
feared  that  these  bishops,  whom  he  knew  to  be  much  attached  to  Constantino, 
and  to  have  vast  influence  with  the  people,  if  he  spared  them,  would  prove 
traitors  and  enemies,  would  communicate  information  to  Constantino,  and  would 
'.'xcite  sedition  and  rebellion  among  the  plebeians  whom  they  controlled.  Sozo- 
men  perceived  this  motive  in  the  crafty  man ;  for  he  says,  (Hist.  Eccles.  L.  i. 
c.  7.  p.  409.):  Licinius  existimabat,  ecclesias  Christianorura  (and  especially  the 
presidents  or  bishops  of  the  churches,)  id  unum  optare  ct  studere,  ut  ilium 
{Conslantinum)  solum  Imperatorem  haberent.  Therefore  Licinius  first  expelled 
all  Christians  from  his  palace;  and  then,  proceeding  farther,  he  ordered  all  mili- 
tary men  on  duty  in  the  cities,  if  they  refused  to  sacrifice  to  the  Gods,  to  be  de- 
prived of  their  military  honors.  {Eusehius,  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  x.  c.  8.  p.  396.) 
Other  enactments,  altogether  unjust  and  cruel,  followed.  Through  his  provin- 
cial governors,  he  raised  calumnies  against  the  bishops  most  distinguished  for 
probity  of  life  and  for  influence,  and  then  put  them  to  death  in  new  and  most 
cruel  ways.  Some  of  the  temples  he  demolished ;  others  he  ordered  to  be  closed. 
These  were  the  precursors  of  heavier  calamities  and  sufferings,  with  which  he 
threatened  the  Christians  when  he  should  have  conquered  Constantine.  There- 
fore many  of  them,  to  save  their  lives  from  peril,  fled,  and  took  refuge  in  the 
fields  and  deserts.  But  divine  Providence,  by  the  victories  of  Constantine,  dis- 
sipated all  his  atrocious  projects.  And  this  war  of  Licinius,  became  beneficial 
rather  than  injurious  to  the  Christians.  For,  Licinius  being  slain,  and  Constaru 
tine,  ruling  the  empire  without  a  colleague,  more  zealously  than  ever,  protected 
the  Christian  cause,  and  defended  it  against  the  assaults  and  machinations  of 
the  old  s-uoerstition. 


END   OF    THE   SECOND    VOLUME. 


VOL.  n.  32 


TABLE  OF  COINCIDENCES. 


The  paging  of  the  original  Latin  is  noted  in  brackets  at  the  outer  endings  of  the 
lines  in  this  translation.   But  as  the  figures  do  not  stand  out  very  prominentlyy 

:  and  as  the  paging  of  the  original  is  most  commonly  referred  to  by  writers,  the 
following  table  of  the  coincidences  of  the  two  pagings  is  subjoined. 


Orig. 

Transl. 

Orig. 

Transl. 

Orig. 

Transl. 

Orfg. 

Transl. 

Orig. 

TransL 

p.  1  vol 

I.  p.  8 

p.  57  vol. 

I.  p.  76 

p.  113  vol.  I 

p.  145 

p.  169  vol.  I 

.p.  216 

p.  225  vol  I 

.p. 283 

284 

2 

9 

58 

77 

114 

147 

170 

217 

226 

3 

9 

59 

79 

115 

148 

171 

218 

227 

285 

4 

11 

60 

80 

116 

149 

172 

219 

228 

286 

5 

12 

61 

81 

117 

150 

173 

221 

229 

287 

6 

13 

62 

83 

118 

151 

174 

222 

230 

289 

7 

15 

63 

84 

119 

153 

175 

223 

831 

290 

8 

16 

64 

85 

120 

154 

176 

224 

232 

291 

9 

17 

65 

86 

121 

155 

177 

225 

233 

292 

10 

19 

66 

88 

122 

156 

178 

226 

234 

293 

11 

20 

67 

89 

123 

157 

179 

227 

235 

294 

12 

21 

68 

90 

124 

159 

180 

229 

236 

295 

13 

22 

69 

91 

125 

160 

181 

230 

237 

297 

14 

24 

70 

92 

126 

161 

182 

231 

238 

298 

15 

25 

71 

93 

127 

162 

183 

233 

239 

299 

16 

26 

72 

94 

128 

163 

184 

234 

240 

300 

17 

28 

73 

9& 

129 

165 

185 

235 

241 

302 

18 

29 

74 

97 

130 

166 

186 

237 

242 

303 

19 

30 

75 

98 

131 

167 

187 

238 

243 

304 

20 

31 

76 

100 

132 

168 

188 

239 

244 

305 

21 

32 

77 

lOl 

133 

170 

189 

241 

245 

307 

22 

34 

78 

102 

134 

171 

190 

242 

246 

308 

23 

35 

79 

103 

135 

172 

191 

243 

247 

309 

24 

36 

80 

104 

136 

173 

192 

244 

248 

310 

25 

37 

81 

106 

137 

175 

193 

245 

249 

312 

26 

39 

82 

107 

138 

176 

194 

247 

250 

313 

27 

40 

83 

108 

139 

177 

195 

248 

251 

314 

28 

41 

84 

109 

140 

179 

196 

249 

252 

315 

29 

42 

85 

110 

141 

180 

197 

250 

253 

316 

30 

43 

86 

111 

142 

181 

198 

252 

254 

318 

31 

44 

87 

113 

143 

183 

199 

253 

255 

319 

32 

46 

88 

114 

144 

184 

200 

254 

256 

320 

33 

47 

89 

115 

145 

186 

201 

256 

257 

321 

34 

48 

90 

116 

146 

187 

202 

257 

258 

322 

35 

49 

91 

117 

147 

188 

203 

259 

259 

324 

36 

50 

92 

119 

148 

190 

204 

260 

260 

325 

37 

51 

93 

120 

149 

191 

205 

261 

261 

326 

38 

52 

94 

121 

150 

192 

206 

262 

262 

327 

39 

54 

95 

122 

151 

194 

207 

263 

263 

328 

40 

55 

96 

123 

152 

195 

208 

264 

264 

329 

41 

56 

97 

124 

153 

196 

209 

265 

265 

330 

42 

58 

98 

126 

154 

197 

210 

266 

266 

3:31 

43 

59 

99 

127 

155 

199 

211 

267 

267 

332 

44 

60 

100 

128 

156 

200 

212 

268 

268 

333 

45 

61 

101 

129 

157 

201 

213 

269 

269 

334 

46 

62 

102 

130 

158 

202 

214 

270 

270 

336 

47 

64 

103 

131 

159 

204 

215 

271 

271 

337 

48 

65 

104 

133 

160 

205 

216 

27:i 

272 

338 

49 

66 

105 

]34 

161 

206 

217 

274 

2r\ 

339 

50 

67 

106 

136 

162 

207 

218 

275 

274  • 

340 

51 

69 

107 

138 

163 

208 

219 

276 

275 

342 

52 

70 

108 

139 

164 

210 

220 

277 

276 

343 

53 

71 

109 

140 

165 

211 

221 

27rf 

277 

344 

54 

72 

110 

142 

166 

212 

222 

279 

278 

345 

55 

74 

111 

143 

167 

2i;i 

223 

281 

279 

:j.16 

56 

75 

112 

144 

168 

214 

224 

282 

280 

347 

484        Coincidences  of  the  pages  in  the  Original  and  in  the  Translatic 


Orig. 

Tr.nsl. 

Orig. 

Transl. 

Orig. 

Tran«l. 

Orig. 

Trans]. 

Orig. 

Tninsl. 

p.281vol.I.p.348 

p.  357  vol.] 

.p.  432 

p.433\ 

'ol.I.p.521 

p.509i 

•Ol.ll.p.56 

p. 585\ 

ol.II.p.  125 

282 

349 

358 

434 

434 

522 

510 

^57 

586 

^  126 

283 

350 

359 

435 

435 

523 

511 

58 

587 

]27 

284 

352 

360 

436 

436 

524 

512 

58 

588 

128 

285 

353 

361 

437 

437 

525 

513 

59 

589 

129 

286 

354 

362 

438 

4.38 

526 

514 

60 

590 

L30 

287 

355 

363 

439 

439 

527 

515 

61 

591 

131 

288 

356 

364 

440 

440 

528 

516 

62 

592 

132 

289 

357 

365 

441 

441 

529 

517 

63 

593 

1.33 

290 

358 

366 

443 

442 

530 

518 

64 

594 

134 

291 

359 

367 

444 

443 

531 

519 

65 

595 

i:]4 

292 

360 

368 

445 

444 

532 

520 

66 

596 

135 

293 

362 

369 

446 

445 

533 

521 

67 

597 

136 

294 

3(53 

370 

447 

44G 

535 

522 

68 

598 

137 

295 

364 

371 

448 

447 

536 

523 

69 

599 

138 

296 

365 

372 

450 

44S  ^ 

•ol.II.p.  1 

524 

69 

600 

139 

297 

3G6 

373 

451 

449 

525 

70 

601 

140 

298 

3G7 

374 

452 

450 

3 

526 

71 

602 

141 

299 

368 

375 

453 

451 

3 

527 

72 

603 

14i 

300 

369 

376 

454 

452 

4 

528 

73 

604 

143 

301 

370 

377 

456 

453 

5 

529 

74 

605 

143 

302 

371 

378 

457 

454 

6 

530 

75 

606 

144 

303 

372 

379 

458 

455 

7 

531 

76 

607 

145 

304 

373 

380 

459 

456 

8 

532 

77 

608 

146 

305 

374 

381 

461 

457 

t) 

533 

77 

609 

147 

306 

375 

382 

462 

458 

10 

534 

78 

610 

14H 

307 

376 

383 

463 

459 

11 

535 

79 

611 

149 

308 

377 

384 

464 

460 

11 

536 

80 

612 

149 

309 

379 

385 

465 

461 

12 

537 

81 

613 

150 

310 

380 

386 

467 

462 

13 

538 

82 

614 

151 

311 

381 

387 

468 

463 

14 

539 

83 

615 

152 

312 

382 

388 

469 

464 

15 

540 

84 

616 

15:3 

313 

383 

389 

470 

465 

16 

541 

sr^ 

617 

154 

314 

384 

390 

472 

466 

17 

542 

86 

618 

155 

3]  5 

385 

391 

473 

467 

18 

54.3 

87 

619 

156 

316 

386 

392 

474 

468 

19 

544 

88 

620 

156 

317 

387 

393 

475 

469 

19 

545 

88 

621 

157 

318 

388 

394 

477 

470 

20 

546 

89 

622 

1.58 

319 

389 

395 

478 

471 

21 

547 

90 

623 

159 

320 

390 

396 

479 

472 

548 

91 

624 

IflO 

321 

392 

397 

480 

47.3 

2.3 

549 

92 

625 

161 

322 

393 

398 

482 

474 

24 

550 

93 

626 

162 

323 

394 

399 

483 

475 

25 

551 

94 

627 

163 

324 

395 

400 

484 

476 

26 

552 

95 

628 

163 

325 

396 

401 

485 

477 

26 

553 

90 

629 

161 

326 

397 

402 

487 

478 

27 

5,54 

96 

630 

165 

327 

399 

403 

488 

479 

28 

555 

97 

6.31 

166 

328 

400 

404 

489 

480 

29 

556 

98 

632 

lf?7 

329 

401 

405 

490 

481 

30 

557 

99 

633 

168 

330 

402 

406 

491 

482 

31 

558 

]00 

634 

169 

331 

403 

407 

492 

483 

32 

559 

lOl 

635 

170 

332 

404 

408 

494 

484 

33 

560 

102 

636 

171 

333 

405 

409 

495 

485 

34 

561 

103 

637 

171 

a34 

407 

410 

496 

486 

35 

562 

104 

638 

172 

335 

408 

411 

497 

487 

36 

563 

105 

639 

17.3 

336 

409 

412 

498 

488 

37 

564 

106 

640 

174 

337 

410 

413 

500 

489 

38 

565 

107 

641 

]7.-. 

338 

411 

414 

501 

490 

39 

566 

108 

612 

I';!; 

339 

412 

415 

502 

491 

40 

567 

109 

613 

I'.h 

340 

413 

416 

503 

492 

40 

568 

110 

644 

377 

341 

414 

417 

504 

493 

41 

569 

110 

645 

r,H 

342 

416 

418 

505 

494 

42 

570 

111 

646 

179 

343 

417 

419 

506 

495 

43 

571 

112 

647 

180 

344 

418 

420 

507 

496 

44 

572 

113 

648 

181 

345 

419 

421 

508 

497 

45 

573 

114 

649 

181 

346 

420 

422 

509 

498 

46 

574 

115 

650 

182 

347 

421 

423 

510 

499 

47 

575 

116 

651 

183 

348 

422 

424 

511 

500 

48 

576 

117 

652 

184 

349 

423 

425 

513 

501 

48 

577 

118 

653 

185 

350 

42;-) 

426 

514 

502 

49 

578 

119 

654 

186 

351 

426 

427 

515 

503 

50 

579 

120 

655 

187 

352 

427 

428 

516 

504 

51 

580 

121 

656 

187 

353 

428 

429 

517 

505 

52 

581 

122 

657 

188 

354 

429 

430 

518 

506 

63 

582 

122 

658 

189 

355 

430 

431 

519 

507 

54 

583 

123 

6.-)9 

190 

356 

431 

432 

520 

508 

55 

584 

124 

660 

191 

Coincidences  of  the  pages  in  the  Original  and  in  the  Translation.        485 


Ori§. 

Transl. 

— V 

Orig. 

Trnnsl. 

1   Orig. 

TninRl. 

Oris. 

Transl. 

Orig. 

Trinal 

p.6Glvol.II.p.l92 

p.  727vol.  II 

p.250 

p.  793vol.  11 

1).308 

p.85;tvol.lI 

p.365 

n.924vol.II 

p.423 

^  6iV2 

193 

728 

251 

794 

309 

860 

:i66 

'  925 

*^424 

6G3 

194 

729 

252 

795 

310 

86) 

367 

.^26 

425 

661 

194 

730 

253 

796 

311 

862 

368 

927 

426 

6(55 

195 

731 

253 

797 

311 

863 

36!) 

928 

427 

66t) 

196 

732 

254 

798 

312 

864 

370 

929 

428 

6(i7 

197 

733 

255 

799 

313 

865 

371 

930 

429 

G6S 

198 

734 

256 

800 

314 

ma 

37-J 

931 

430 

6G9 

199 

735 

257 

801 

315 

867 

37'' 

9.32 

4.30 

670 

200 

736 

258 

802 

316 

868   • 

37.^ 

933 

43] 

671 

200 

737 

259 

803 

317 

869 

374 

934 

432 

672 

201 

738 

260 

804 

318 

870 

375 

935 

433 

673 

202 

739 

261 

805 

318 

871 

376 

936 

434 

674 

203 

740 

261 

806 

319 

872 

377 

937 

435 

675 

204 

741 

262 

807 

320 

873 

378 

938 

436 

676 

205 

742 

2(i3 

808 

321 

874 

379 

939 

437 

677 

206 

743 

264 

809 

322 

875 

379 

940 

438 

678 

206 

744 

2G5 

810 

323 

876 

380 

941 

439 

679 

207 

745 

266 

811 

324 

877 

381 

942 

439 

680 

208 

746 

266 

812 

325 

878 

382 

943 

440 

681 

209 

747 

267 

813 

325 

879 

383 

944 

441 

682 

210 

748 

268 

814 

326 

880 

384 

945 

442 

683 

211 

749 

269 

815 

327 

881 

385 

946 

443 

684 

212 

750 

270 

816 

328 

882 

386 

947 

444 

685 

213 

751 

271 

817 

329 

883 

386 

948 

445 

686 

213 

752 

272 

818 

330 

884 

387 

949 

446 

687 

214 

753 

273 

819 

331 

885 

388 

950 

447 

688 

215 

754 

273 

820 

331 

886 

389 

951 

447 

689 

216 

755 

274 

821 

332 

887 

390 

952 

448 

690 

217 

756 

275 

822 

333 

888 

391 

953 

449 

691 

218 

757 

276 

823 

334 

889 

392 

954 

4.50 

692 

219 

758 

277 

824 

335 

890 

393 

955 

451 

693 

220 

759 

278 

825 

336 

891 

393 

956 

452 

694 

221 

760 

279 

826 

337 

892 

394 

957 

4.53 

695 

221 

761 

280 

827 

338 

893 

395 

9,18 

454 

696 

222 

762 

280 

828 

338 

894 

396 

959 

455 

697 

223 

763 

281 

829 

339 

895 

397 

960 

455 

698 

224 

764 

282 

830 

340 

896 

398 

961 

4.56 

699 

225 

765 

283 

831 

341 

897 

399 

962 

4.57 

700 

226 

766 

284 

832 

342 

898 

400 

963 

458 

701 

227 

767 

285 

833 

343 

899 

400 

964 

459 

702 

228 

768 

286 

834 

344 

900 

401 

965 

460 

703 

229 

769 

287 

835 

345 

901 

402 

966 

461 

704 

229 

770 

287 

836 

346 

902 

403 

967 

462 

705 

230 

771 

288 

837 

346 

903 

404 

968 

463 

706 

231 

772 

289 

838 

347 

904 

405 

969 

463 

707 

232 

773 

290 

839 

348 

905 

406 

970 

464 

708 

233 

774 

291 

840 

349 

906 

407 

971 

465 

709 

234 

775 

292 

841 

350 

907 

407 

972 

466 

710 

235 

776 

293 

842 

351 

908 

408 

973 

467 

711 

236 

777 

294 

843 

352 

909 

409 

974 

468 

712 

236 

778 

295 

844 

353 

910 

410 

975 

469 

713 

237 

779 

295 

845 

353 

911 

412 

976 

469 

714 

238 

780 

296 

846 

354 

912 

413 

977 

470 

715 

239 

781 

297 

847 

355 

913 

413 

978 

471 

716 

240 

782 

298 

848 

356 

914 

414 

979 

472 

717 

241 

783 

299 

849 

357 

915 

415 

980 

473 

718 

242 

784 

300 

850 

358 

916 

416 

981 

474 

719 

243 

785 

301 

851 

359 

017 

417 

982 

475 

720 

244 

786 

302 

852 

359 

918 

418 

983 

476 

721 

245 

787 

303 

853 

360 

919 

419 

984 

477 

722 

246 

788 

303 

854 

361 

920 

420 

985 

477 

723 

246 

789 

304 

8.55 

362 

921 

421 

986 

478 

724 

247 

790 

305 

856 

363 

922 

422 

987 

479 

725 

248 

791 

306 

857 

364 

923 

422 

988 

480 

726 

249 

792 

307 

858 

365 

GENERAL  INDEX  TO  THE  WORK. 


A. 

Abeliies,  heretics,  II.  Cent.   I.  485.  n.  (1.) 

Abgarus,  his  correspondence  with  Christ.    I.  95. 

Abraxas,  with  BasUides,  the  king  of  heaven.     I.  417. — Import  of  the  Word. 

I.  421. — Was  it  applied  to  Jesus  Christ?  I.  423. — Inscribed  on  gems.  I.  424. 
Abstinence,  as  taught  by  Mystics,  II.  Cent.     I.  380. — by  Salurninus.     I.  414. 
Academic  Philosophers,  their  doctrines.     I.  34,  35. 

Accusers  of  Christians,  under  Trojan.    I.  293. — under  Hadrian.    I.  296.— under 

Antoninus  Pius.    I.  300. 
Achamotlu,  an  Aeon,  of  Valentinus.    1.  459. 
Actions  of  men,  morality  of,  subverted  by  Carpocrates.    I.  446. 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  disapproved  by  the  Manichaeans.    II.  272. 
Adam,  how  viewed  by  Manes.     II.  317. 
Adamites,  heretics,  II.  Cent.    I.  485. 
Adultery,  esteemed  lawful  by  Carpocrates.    I.  445. — a  ground  for  excommunU 

cation.     II.  68. 
Advent  of  Christ,  according  to  Manes.     II.  349. 
Aelia  Capitolina,  built  by  Hadrian.     I.  398. 
Aelians,  Christians.  II.  Cent.     I.  399. 
JEon  0^  Valentinus;  see  "Aieeva. 

African  churcli,  disputes  on  heretical  baptisms.     II.  78.  89. 
Agapae,  in  the  early  church.     I.  194. 
Agapelae,  or  synisactae  mulieres.     II.  138.  n.  (2.) 
Aganensian  Martyrs.     II.  107. 

Ages,  (Saecula,)  associated  with  the  good  God  of  Manes.     II.  289. 
Agriculture,  disapproved  by  Manichaeans.     II.  363. 
"Aietrti,  of  the  Orient.  Philosophers.     I.  43.— of  Simon  Magus.    I.  246.— of 

Cerintlius.     I.  251.— of  Barsilides.  I.  416,  419.  n.  (3.)— Christ  the  highest 

Aeon  of  Carpocrates.    I.  440. — Their  number  and  names,  according  to 

Valentinus.  I.  452. — Manes  associated  them  with  the  good  God.  II.  289. 
Alexander,  a  heretic  of  the  Apostolic  age.  I.  222. — an  Impostor,  II.  Cent.  I.  277. 
Alexander  Severus,  Emp.  state  of  Christians  under  him.     II.  13.— Was  he  a 

Christian?    II.  14.  n.  (2.) 
Alexander,  a  martyr  of  Jerusalem.     II.  27. 
Alexandria,  church  of,  very  influential.     I.  323.— Its  school  cultivated  allegorio 

interpretations.    II.  166. 
Allegoric  Interpretation,  its  origin  and  abuse.     I.  368.— of  Origeriy  fully  stated. 

II.  165,  &c. 


488  GENERAL     INDEX. 

Alms,  the  almoners  of  the  prim,  church.    I.  152. — Alms  of  Christians.   I.  331.— 

at  Carthage.     II.  52.— of  Manicha3ans.     II.  3G4. 
Ambition,  a  source  of  heresies ;   c.  g.  of  Valentinus.  nl.  449. — of  Mareion.    1. 

486.— of  Paul  of  Samosata.     II.  229. 
Ammoniiis  Saccas,  a  Philosopher.    I.  38. — his  school.    II.  348. 
Amulets.     II,  94. 
Anahapiism  of  heretics.     II.  78. 
Ananias  and  Sapphira.     I.  147. 
Angels,  called  jEons  by  the  fathers.     I.  44,  55. — Bishops,  so  called.     I.  171. — 

Doctrine  of  Saturninus  of  them.    I.  410. — Basilides  made  375  Orders  of. 

I.  417.  420. — held  the  angels  presiding  over  nations,  to  be  the  authors  of 
many  evils.     I.  429. 

Anthony,  the  father  of  Eremites.     II.  198. 

Antichrist,  of  the  Jews.    I.  55,  &c. — supposed  to  be  at  hand,  in  III.  Cent.  II.  7. 

Antioch,  church  of,  its  rank  and  influence.     I.  323. 

Antipas,  son  of  Herod  the  Gr.    1.  50,  51. 

A7itoninus  Pius,s{site  of  Christianity  under.  I.  300. — under  Mar.  Avrel.  I.  302. 

Apelles,  a  heretic.     I.  487. 

Apocalypse  of  John,  its  authority.     II.  245. 

Apollo,  Oi'ac]e  of:  see  Oracles.    II.  414. 

Appollonius,  a  Martyr.     I.  317. —  Tyanaeus,  compared  to  Christ.     II.  104. 

Apologies,  they  aided  Christianity.  I.  282. — Authors  of,  in  II.  Cent.  I.  282. — 
Estimate  of  them.  I.  287,  297.— of  Justin  Martyr.  I.  300,  303.— pre- 
sented to  the  Emp.  Marcus.  I.  308.— of  Tertullian.  I.  317,  318.— of 
Eusebius  for  Origen.     II.  201. 

Apostles,  chosen  by  Christ.  I.  90. — Import  of  the  word  'Attzs-tokos.  I.  91. — 
Messengers  of  the  High  Priest.  I.  91. — A  new  one,  how  chosen.  I.  102. — 
Their  labors,  travels,  miracles,  and  death.  I.  106. — Proof  that  they  wrought 
miracles.  I.  115. — Gnostics  arose  after  the  decease  of  the  Apostles.  I. 
406. — The  Apostles  of  the  Gauls.  II.  2. — Manes  styled  himself  an  Apostle 
of  Jesus  Christ.     II.  256,  263. — He  impiously  created  Apostles  of  himself. 

II.  401. 

Aposiolici,  heretics,  II.  Cent.    I.  485. 

Apostolical  churches,  greatly  respected.     I.  324. 

Apotactics,  heretics,  II.  Cen.     I.  482. 

Apuleius,  his  book  ag.  Christians,  entitled  The  Golden  Ass.     II.  105. 

Arabia  Feli.x,  christianized.     I.  263. 

Arabian  Heretics.     II.  242. 

Arabians  converted.     II.  1. 

Arcane  Discipline,  among  Christians,  origin  of.    I.  373,  n.  (2.) 

Archelaus,  king  of  Judea.     I.  50,  51. 

Aristotle,  some  of  his  opinions,     I.  35. 

Arius,  his  Epistle  concerning  Sabellius.     II.  223. 

Arlemas,  or  Artemon,  denied  the  divinity  of  Christ.     I.  518. 

Artemas,  his  heresy.     II.  233. 

Ascension  of  Isaiah.     II.  406. 


GEN^ERAL      INDEX.  489 

Ascetics,  origin  of,  among  Christinns.     I.  381. — wore  cloaks.     I.  38S.  II.  199. 

Asiatic  Christians,  time  of  celebrating  Easter.  I.  523. — Controversy  with  the 
Romish  church.     11.  78. 

Asseniblies,  religious,  form  of,  in  the  prim,  church.  I.  146. — The  parts  of  wor- 
ship in  them.  I.  185.— proliibited  by  the  rulers.  II.  94,  99. — by  Dioclnian. 
II.  26. 

Atheists,  were  the  ancient  Philosophers  a^/ie?s/s .?  1.28,  n.  (1.) — Christians  called 
Atheists.  '  I.  300. 

Athenaguras,  his  writings.     I.  394. 

Auditors,  who  so  called,  among  Manichceans?     II.  399. 

Augustine,  a  principal  writer  on  IManichajism.     II.  253. 

Augustus,  Emp.  state  of  the  empire  under  him.     I.  9,  &c. 

Aurelian,  Emp.  referred  a  dispute  among  Christians  to  a  council  of  bishops. 
11.  241. 

Aurelian,  Emp.  persecuted  the  Christians,     II.  100,  &c. 

Avarice,  a  cause  of  persecution.     II.  6. — an  excommunicable  offence.     II.  68. 


Bahylas,  a  martyr.     II.  478. 

Baptism,  deferred  long,  by  Constantine,  and  by  many  others.  II.  462. — Rites 
of  {ibid.) — Christian,  explained.  I.  89. — confirmed  by  a  bishop.  II.  62, 
79.— Its  eflicacy.  II.  72.— Heretical,  validity  of.  II.  78,  &c.— of  the  Ma- 
nichaeans.     II.  392. 

Barchochba,  an  enemy  of  Christians.     I.  299. 

Bardesanes,  his  sect.     I.  477. 

Barnabas,  Epistle  of     I.  207. 

Bartholomew,  converted  the  Indians.     I.  262. 

Basilides,  his  Gnostic  philosophy  and  dogmas.     I.  416. 

Basilidian  gems,  what  ?     I.  424. 

Bema,  a  festival  of  Manichseans.     11.  389. 

Beryllus  of  Bostra,  his  error.     II.  225. 

Bishops,  their  origin.  I.  168,  &c. — consulted  in  all  cases.  I.  225. — in  11.  Cent. 
I.  322. — extent  of  their  power.  I.  331. — persecuted,  especially.  II.  19,  94. 
27,  74. — their  independence  of  each  other.  II.  89. — their  authority  in  III. 
Cent.  11.  116. — all  equal.  11.  122. — their  prerogatives  in  III.  Cent,  en- 
larged. II.  128. — Cijprian  thought  them  created  by  God.  II.  129. — Paul 
of  Samosata,  both  a  bishop  and  a  magistrate.     II.  230. 

Blasphemy,  what  so  accounted  by  Manichaeans.    II.  357. 

Blastes,  a  heretic.     1.  486. 

Body,  severity  to,  learned  from  Platonism.  I.  380.— resurrection  of,  denied  by 
Simonides.  I.  429. — etherial  and  celestial,  assigned  to  Christ  by  the  Bar- 
desanists.  I.  479. — Origen's  opinion  of  the  body.  II.  152. — the  sourco 
of  all  evil,  and  therefore  to  be  mortified,  according  to  the  Mystics.  II.  190 
— state  of,  in  the  future  life.     II.  249. 

Boehmer,  J.  H.  refuted.     I.  156. 


490  GENERAL      INDEX. 

Books,  of  the  N.  Test,  pronounced  by  heretics,  corrupted.  11.  267. — sacred, 
commanded  by  Diocletian,  to  be  burned.  II.  423. — spurious,  forged  by 
Gnostics.  I.  236.— by  Christians.  I.  202— in  II.  Cent.  I.  288.— ascribed 
to  Christ.  I.  364. — the  Gospel  of  the  Nazaraeans.  I.  400. — of  Alanes. 
IF.  257. 

Bread,  breaking  of,  what  in  the  N.  Test.  ?     I.  149. 

Britons,  converted.     I.  261. — Origin  and  doctors  of  their  church.     I.  269. 

Brothers,  a  common  appelhition  among  early  Christians.     I.  180.  / 

Burning  the  Palace  of  Nieoraedia,  charged  on  Christians.     II.  428. 

Bi/'S-of,  in  the  Orient,  philosophy.    I.  43. — an  iEon  of  Valentinus,     I.  459. 


Cabbala,  did  Valentinus  draw  from  it  1     I.  454. 

Ca:sar,  C.  Jul,  his  opinion  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul.     I.  25,  n.  (3.) 

Caesariani,  who  ?  in  the  edict  of  Valerian.     II.  97. 

Cainians,  heretics.    I.  485. 

Calamities,  public,  attributed  to  the  Christians.     I.  134.  II.  76. 

Calumnies  on  the  Christiana.   I.  133.  138. — repelled  by  the  Apologists,     i.  297. 

300. — in  II.  Cent.     I.  305. — Christians  taxed  with  the  public  calamities. 

II.  76.— with  seditions,  (929).  II.  428. 
Candidates  for  the  ministry,  education  of,  in  the  early  church.    I.  166. 
Canon  of  the  N.  Test,  when  and  by  whom  made.     I.  113. 
Canons,  Apostolic,  their  character.     I.  202. — Ecclesiastical,  their  origin.    I.  329. 
Captives  propagated  Christianity  among  Barbarians.     II.  1,  &c. 
Caracalla,  Emp.  persecuted  the  Christians.     II.  8.  11. 

Carpocrates,  his  system  of  Gnosticism.     I.  438. — a  very  corrupt  man.  I.  445. 
Cassianus,  a  heretic.    I.  485. 
Catechumens,  in  the  early  church.    I.  180. — not  taught  all  Christian  doctrines. 

I.  374,  &c.  391.— Was  Constantino  the  Gr.  a  Catechumen?    11.  462. 
Cathari,  a  name  assumed  by  the  Novatians.     IF.  67. 

Celibacy,  origin  of,  among  Christians.  I.  380. — introduced  in  III.  Cent.   II.  138. 

Celsus,  assailed  the  Christians.     I.  319,  &c. 

Cemetaries,  Christians  met  in  them  for  worship.     II.  95.  99. 

Cccnobites,  origin  of,  among  Christians.     I.  380,  &-c. 

Cerdo,  his  heresy.     I.  486,  «fcc. 

Ceremonies,  Mosaic,  venerated.     I.  215. — repudiated  by   most  Christians  in  II. 

Cent.    1.397. — Nazareans' opinion.    1.400. — how  to  be  explained.   11.185. 

—Christian,  in  I.  Cent.    I.  185.— in  II.  Cent.    I.  390. 
Cerinthus,  a  heretic.     I.  250,  &:c. 
Chants,  sacred,  of  early  Christians.    I.  191. — abrogated  by  Paul  of  Samosata. 

II.  229. 

Children,  professors  of  Christ.     II.  95. 

Chiliasts,  history  of.    II.  244.— Most  of  the  early  Christians  Chiliasts.    II.  246. 

Chor-episcopi,  their  origin,  rights,  &c.     I.  175. 

/ 


OENERALINDEX.  491 

Christ,  he  only  could  reform  mankind.  I.  48. — his  history  at  large.  I.  83-100. 
—  Was  lie  a  carpenter?  1.85.  n.  (1.) — His  connection  with  the  Jewish 
church.  I,  88. — Ilis  fame  in  other  countries.  I.  95. — He  died  voluntarily  for 
our  redemption.  I.  98.  n.  (1.) — Why  he  appeared  to  many  beside  his  disciple.** 
after  his  resurrection.  I.  99. — How  he  was  regarded  by  the  Gentiles.  I. 
119. — Impious  opinions  of  him  by  the  Gnostics,  I.  232. — by  Simon  Ma- 
gus. I.  247. — Cerinlhus  distinguished  Christ  from  Jesus,  and  perverted 
the  account  of  his  humiliation  and  exaltation.  I.  251. — Veneration  of  Am- 
monius  for  Christ  and  God.  I.  362. — He  held  that  Christ  wrote  books  on 
theurgy.  I.  364. — Pagan  Oracles,  said  to  laud  Christ.  I.  364. — The  inter- 
nal Christy  of  the  Mystics.  I.  386. — What  the  Nazaraeans  held,  respecting 
his  divine  nature.  I.  400.  402. — Low  opinion  of  him  by  tiie  Ebonites.  I. 
403. — and  by  Saturninus.  I.  413. — Was  he  the  Abraxas  of  Dasilides! 
I.  423. — Basilides'  idea  of  the  object  of  his  advent.  I.  427. — His  other 
doctrines  concerning  the  Saviour.  I.  428. — denied  his  crucifixion.  I.  428. 
— did  he  deny  Christ's  freedom  from  sin?  I.  431. — he  distinguished  Christ 
from  Jesus.  1.431. —  Carpocrates  held  the  most  degrading  opinions  of 
Christ.  I.  439. — distinguished  three  things  in  Christ.  I.  442. —  Valentinus 
accounted  him  the  chief  jEon.  I.  453.  465,  &c. — Marcion's  views  of 
Christ.     I.  492,  &c. — Mojitanus  deemed  Christ's  law  of  holiness  imperfect. 

I.  504,  &c. — Praxeas  denied  the  personality  of  Christ.    I.  513. — Theodotus 
denied  his  divinity.     I.  518. 

Christ,  his  images  worshipped  by  Emperors.  I.  119;  II.  16. — He  was  forsaken 
by  many  professed  Christians,  in  the  Decian  persecution.  H.  31.  38. — Ho 
had  many  true  followers  in  the  court  of  Valerian.  II.  97. — and  in  that  of 
Diocletian.  II.  113. — also  in  the  army.  II.  113. — Good  and  bad  men 
among   his   followers.      II.    137. — Origen's   opinions  concerning   Christ. 

II.  159. 

Christ,  Doctrine  of  his  personality,  corrupted  by  Noetus.  II.  210,  &c. — by  Sa- 
belius.  II.  215. — by  Beryllus.  II,  225. — His  millennial  reign  believed.  II. 
244.— iVfaTies  greatly  dishonored  Christ.  II.  256.  292,  &c. — disliked  the 
name  of  Christ.  II.  295.— supposed  Christ  dwelt  partially  in  the  Moon, 
and  fully  in  the  Sun.    II.  296.     See  also  the  article  Jesus. 

Christianity,  the  Emp.  Decius  aimed  to  extirpate  it  utterly.     II.  27. 

CAm^ians,  the  primitive,  mostly  plebeians;  yet  some  of  them  learned.  I.  117. — 
Causes  of  their  persecution.  I.  129. — Their  number,  in  II  Cent.  I.  274. — 
and  more  fully.  I.  275. — Confounded  with  Atheists  and  Epicureans.  I. 
277.  n. — Some  eagerly  sought  martyrdom.  I.  295. — Christians  were 
deemed  crazy.  I.  303. — esteemed  of  no  importance  by  the  Emp.  Marcus. 
I.  307. — Some  in  II  Cent,  expected  a  restoration  of  Judaism.  I.  397. — 
They  migrate  from  Pella  to  Jerusalem.  I.  399.— Were  the  Emp.  Severus 
and  Philip  Christians?  II.  14,  &c.  22. — They  became  corrupt,  when  freed 
from  persecution.  II.  115.  n.  (3).— Many  of  the  earlier  were  Chiliasts.  II. 
245. — Was  Constandne  a  Christian?  II.  460. — Was  he  a  true  Christian? 
IL  465. 

Christians  of  St.  John.    I.  60. 


492  GENERAL      INDEX. 

Church,  Origen's  idea  of  it.  IT.  177. — Manichacan  form  of  the.  IT.  398. — 
The  first  churches  all  independent.  I.  196. — Apostolic  churches  highly  re- 
spected. I.  197.  n.  323. — Were  the  early  churches  confederated?  I.  198. 
71.(2.) — Churches  founded  in  the  different  provinces.  1.260.  Church  go- 
vernment in  II  Cent.  I.  322. — in  III  Cent.  II.  115. — All  churches  equal 
and  free  in  the  III  Cent.  II.  120. — Primacy  of  the  Romish  church.  I. 
326. — Independence  of  churches  gradually  subverted.  I.  329. — Who  pro- 
perly members  of  the  church  ?  I.  391. — Novatian  held,  none  but  holy  men 
are  members.     II.  ^Q. 

Church  Edifice.,  contest  respecting  one.     II.  241. 

Cicero.,  was  an  Academic  Philosopher.     I.  35. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus,  recommended  philosophy.  I.  341. — injured  biblical  in- 
terpretation.  I.  369. — Mystical  opinions  germinated  in  him.  I.  388.  Hi3 
writings.     I.  393. 

Clemens,  Flavins,  a  consul  and  martyr.     I.  143. 

Clemens  Romanus,  his  writings.  I.  201. — Spurious  works  attributed  to  him. 
I.  202. 

Clemens,  an  apostle  of  the  Gauls.     II.  2. 

Clergij,  in  the  prim,  church.  I.  184. — Import  of  the  word,  and  rights  of  the 
persons.     II.  116. — Their  morals,  in  III  Cent.     II.  137. 

Climate,  its  influence  on  religion.     I.  387. 

Clinic  Baptism.     II.  62. 

Colarhasus,  a  Valentinian  heretic.     I.  473. 

Collins,  Anthony,  his  opinion  refuted.     I.  79.  n.  (2.) 

Cologne,  the  church  there.     I.  269. 

Community  of  Asia,  an  Edict  addressed  to.     I.  301. 

Community  of  goods,  in  prim,  church,  the  author's  opinion  of.     I.  152. 

of  women,  contended  for  Carpocraies.     I.  446. 

Concilahula,  what  ?     II.  94. 

Concupiscence,  prohibition  of,  ridiculed  by  Carpocraies.  I.  445. — How  to  be 
overcome,  according  to  the  Mystics.     II.  194. 

Confessors,  who  so  called  in  the  church.  I.  135. — Veneration  of,  (ibid,  n.) — 
were  elected  ministers  of  churches.     II.  118. 

Confirmation  of  baptism,  by  a  bishop.     II.  62.  79. 

Confiscation  of  goods,  a  penalty  on  Confessors.     II.  97. 

Constantine  the  Gr.  in  what  sense  the  first  Christian  Emp.  11.  25. — his  Histo- 
ry. II.  446. — greatly  favored  Christians.  II.  448. — his  morals  and  reli- 
gion.    II.  449. — gave  full  peace  to  the  Christians.     II.  454. 

Constantius  Chlorus,  how  disposed  towards  Christians?     II.  412. 

Constitutions,  Apostolic,  the  author  of  not  known.     I.  202. 

Contemplation,  mystical,  I.  384.  II.  196. 

Continence,  accounted  more  holy  than  marriage,  in  II  Cent.     I.  382. 

Controversies,  origin  of,  in  prim,  church.  I.  214. — on  necessity  of  observing  the 
Mosaic  law,  (ibid.) — on  the  mode  of  justification.  I.  220. — Appeals  in,  to 
the  Apostolic  churches.  I.  324. — Conduced  to  the  primacy  of  the  Romish 
church.  I.  326. — respecting  philosophy.  I.  343. — among  the  Gnostics.  1.407. 


GENERAL      INDEX.  493 

Controversies  on  ihe  time  of  Easter.  I.  423. — ModernscMT  by  not  considerinfr  tho 
ancient  use  of  the  word  7ru(r;^at.  I.  525. — concerning  the  lapsed.  II.  38. — 
between  Novatus  and  Cyprian.  II.  45. — with  Novatian.  II.  59. — on  here- 
tical baptisms.     II.  78. — on  Trinity  and  person  of  Christ.     II.  209. 

Conventions  for  worship,  form  of  in  prim,  church.  I.  1 17. — Parts  of  worship 
described.  I.  1S5. — prohibited  by  civil  rulers.  II.  94.  99. — by  Diocletian. 
II.  426. 

Coracion,  a  Chlllast.     II.  250. 

Cornelius,  bp.  of  Rome.     II.  58,  &c. — was  a  Confessor.     II.  74. 

Councils,  had  the  early  church  any  ?  I.  196. — Tliat  at  Jerusalem.  I.  199. — can 
it  be  called  a  Council?  I.  216.  n. — Councils  originated  in  II  Cent,  among 
the  Greeks,  and  from  the  civil  connection  in  provinces.  I.  329. — Tertul- 
lian's  account  of  them.  I.  332.— Councils  held  at  Carthage.  II.  45.  56. 
84. — Council  of  Antioch  ag.  Paul  of  Samosata.  II.  228. — Aurelian,  Emp. 
respected  them.     II.  241. 

Creation  of  man,  according  to  Orient.  Philosophers.  I.  44,  &c. — of  the  worl  i 
I.  410.  420.  425. — See  Gnostics. — Valentinian's  opinion.  I.  452. — Ilermo- 
genes  denied  creation  from  nothing.     I.  520. — Views  of  Manes.     II.  330. 

Creator  of  this  world,  Basalides  had  better  views  of  him  than  the  other  Gnos- 
tics.    1.  425.— Opinion  of  Marcion.     I.  489. 

Creed,  the  Apostles-,  when  and  by  whom  composed.  I.  114. — Conjecture  as  to 
the  origin  of  the  name.     I.  392.  n.  (1.) 

Crescens,  an  enemy  of  Christians.     I.  320. 

Cross,  was  Christ  really  or  only  apparently  crucified,  according  to  Basilides  ?  I. 
432. — Sign  of,  on  the  forehead,  and  its  use.  II.  113. — seen  by  Constantine, 
was  it  a  real  vis-ion,  discussed.     II.  472. 

Cubricus,  the  original  name  of  Manes.     II.  257. 

Cyprian,  how  he  treated  the  lapsed.  II.  39. — his  contest  with  Novatus.  TI.  45. 
— demanded  for  the  lions.     11.74,75. — his  life.     II.  117. — his  martyrdom. 

n.  91. 

D. 

DarJmess,  a  symbol  of  evil  among  Orientals.  T.  478.  489.  387. — Manichajan  opi- 
nions of  it  and  of  its  wars.     II.  274.  280,  &.c. 

David,  his  posterity  sought  after  by  the  Emp.  Domitian.     I.  143. 

Day,  the  Lord's,  observed  by  Christians.  I.  145.  Asiatics  did  not  confine  Eas- 
ter to  it.     I.  530. 

Deacons,  in  prim,  church.     I.  152,  «&c.  155.' — Deaconesses.     I.  176. — in  II  Cent. 

I.  322. — high  authority  of  in  African  church.     II.  53. — Cyprian's  opinion  o£ 

II.  131. 

Decius,  Emp.  cruelly  persecuted  Christians.     11.  26. 

Deists  contend,  the  Christians  were  few  in  I  and  II  Centuries.     I.  275. 

Demas,  was  he  a  heretic  ?     I.  222. 

Demetrianus,  mentioned  in  the  history  of  Cyprian.     II.  75. 

Demetrius,  bp.  of  Alexandria.     I.  262.  II.  200. 


494  GENERAL      INDEX. 

Demiurge  of  the  Orient.  Philosophers.     I.  45.— His  genealogy  given  by  Va- 

lentinua.     I.  461.— The  Valentinian  Creator.     I.  462.— The  Manichaean. 

ir.  331. 
Demon  of  Manes,  a  biped.     II.  285. 
Demons,  doctrine  of,  by  Ammonius  Saccas.   I.  355. — repelled  by  Christians.    II. 

93. — by  the  sign  of  the  cross.    II.  113. 
Descent  of  Christ  to  Hell,  according  to  Marcion.     I.  495,  n.  (4.) 
Dioceses.     I.  175. 
Diocletian,  his  persecution.    11.  106,  &c.— had  Christians  about  him.   II.  413. — 

naturally  benevolent,  but  prompted  by  the  pagan  priests.     II.  414. 
Diomjsius,  the  Arcopagite,  Apostle  of  the  Gauls.     II.  3,  n.  (1.) 

,  bp.  of  Alexandria.     II.  99,  215,  228. 

Diotrephes,  was  he  a  heretic  ?    I.  223. 

Disciples,  the  seventy  of  Christ,  who  and  what  ?     I.  94. 

Disciplina  Arcani,  preposterously  introduced.    I.  377. — Ecclesiastical.     II.  22. 

Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  enemies  of.     I.  518. — Paul  of  Samosata.     II.  233. 

Dogmatic  Theology,  corrupted  by  philosophy.     I.  372. — twofold,  sublime  and 

popular.    I.  373. — of  Basilides,  respecting  redemption.    I.  427. — of  Carpo- 

crates.     I.  439.— of  Valentinus.     I.  458,  462. 
Domitian,  he  persecuted.    I.  142. — enquired  after  David's  posterity.    I.  143. 
Domitilla,  Flavia.     I.  143. 
Door  of  Christ,  what?    I.  121. 
Dreams,  divine,  in  III.  Cent.     II,  4. 

Dositheus,  was  he  a  heretic,  or  delirious  ?    I.  Cent.    I.  240.  n. 
Ducenarius,  Paul  of  Samosata  one  :  what  this  rank  1     II.  230. 
Dynamis,  an  iEon  of  Basilides.     I.  417. 

IS. 

Earthquakes,  pernicious  to  Christians.     I.  301.  II.  20. 

East,  Manichaeans  turned  towards,  in  prayer.     II.  298. 

Easter,  controversy  as  to  time  of.  1.523. — TraT^a.  denoted  the  day  of  Christ^s 
death.     I.  526. 

Ebionites,  not  of  the  I.  Cent.     I.  220,  n.  (2.)— treated  of  in  II.  Cent.  I.  400. 

Eclectic  Philosophers,  their  opinions.     I.  38. — their  founder  (ibid.) 

Edicts  ag.  Christians.  I.  140.— of  Trajan.  I.  292,  294.— of  Hadrian.  I.  297. — 
of  Antoninus  Pius  to  the  Commons  of  Asia.  I.  301. — of  Marcus  Aure- 
lius.  I.  303. — Edicts  not  repealed,  occasioned  vexations.  I.  317. — Edicts 
of  Severus.  II.  7. — collected  by  Ulplan.  II.  13. — of  Decius.  11.  26. — of 
Valerian.  II.  96. — of  Gallienus,  II.  100. — of  Diocletian  to  the  soldiers. 
II.  113.— ag.  all  Christians.   II.  416.— The  new  Edicts.    11.  428,  435. 

Egyptiams,  their  sacred  wars.  I.  14, 72.  (1.) — their  general  and  provincial  re- 
ligions. I.  21. — from  Egypt  came  most  of  the  evils  in  the  church.  I.  369, 
n.  (2.)— the  birthplace  of  mystical  Christians  in  II.  Cent.    I.  380.  II.  198. 

Elcesaites,  a  sect,  their  discipline.    I.  408. 

Elect,  the,  among  Manichaeans,  revered.     II.  299. — their  worship.    II.  391,  396. 


GENERAL      INDEX.  495 

£Zec/jonof  ministers. bclonj^cd  to  the  churches.  1.103. — as  hite  ns TIT.  Cent.  11.117. 

Elements,  the  material,  of  Manichaeans.  II.  280. — in  the  world  of  darkness.  II. 
280.— in  the  world  of  lifrht.    II.  282.— ^iL'C  in  each  world  {ibid.) 

Eleutlierus  sent  Christian  teachers  to  England.    I.  273. 

Elxai,  head  of  the  Elcesaites.     I.  408. 

Emperors,  Rom.  Some  of  them  respected  Christ.  I.  119.  IT.  15. — Their  edicts  ag. 
Christians.  I.  140,  n.  (1.) — see  Edicts. — Some  of  them  patronized  Chris- 
tians. I.  298, 77.  (3,)  317.  II.  91.— especially  in  the  IV.  Cent.  II.  412,414.— 
Who  was  the  first  Christian  Emp.  ?     II.  14,  23. 

Encratites.     I.  482.  •** 

Epicurean  Philosophers,  their  pestiferous  doctrines.     I.  83. 

Epiphanes,  son  of  Carporates,  was  he  deified?     I.  444,  447,  n.  (2.) 

•E;ri<rT«>«,  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  what?     IT.  237. 

Eremites,  their  origin.  I.  68. — from  Egyptian  and  Platonic  philosophy.  1.  380. — 
Paul  of  Thebais  their  patriarch.    II.  190,  198. 

Essenes,  why  not  mentioned  in  N.  Test.  I.  50,  n.  (1.) — two  kinds  of,  theoretical 
and  practical.  I.  68. — Porphyry,  concerning  them.  I.  70. — They  sacrificed 
in  the  night,  and  burned  the  whole  offering.     I.  71. 

Eucharist,  what,  among  the  Manichaeans.     II.  396. 

Eucharius,  Apostle  of  Germany.     I.  269.  IT.  2. 

Europeans,  blindly  imitated  the  austere  Oriental  Mystics.     I.  386,  390. 

Eve,  history  of,  by  Manes.     II.  316. — her  generation.     II.  322. 

Evil,  whence  came  it  ?  I.  44. — according  to  the  Gnostics.  I.  230,  255. — Physi- 
cal evils  attributed  to  the  Christians.  I.  301.  II.  20.  73. — Thus  the  confla- 
gration of  the  palace  at  Nicomedia.  II.  428. — Natural  and  moral,  origin 
of.     I.  410,  489.— Whence  all  the  evils  men  suffer.     II.  192. 

Excommunication.  I.  143,  n.  (5.) — Its  severity  as  inflicted  on  Valentinus.  I. 
449. — and  on  Montanus.  I.  498. — who  allowed  no  absolution  from  it.  I. 
506. — Excom.  of  theAsiatlcs.  I.  534. — Its  true  nature,  in  the  early  church. 
I.  536.— of  the  lapsed  in  TIT.  Cent.  II.  38.— of  schismatics.  II.  54.— rigo- 
rous,  of  Novatian.     II.  66. 

Exegetic  Theology.     See  Scripture. 

Exile,  a  punishment  inflicted  on  Christians.     11.  75,  94. 

Exorcists,  in  IV.  Cent.    II.  415. 


Fabian,  a  martyr.     IT.  27. 

Faith,  the,  of  Constantine,  discussed.  II.  460. — corrupted  by  Corpocrates.  I.  442. 

Faithful,  the,  in  the  prim,  church.     I.  180. 

Fall  of  man,  how  explained  by  Basilides.     I.  427. — and  by  Manes.    IT.  323. 

Fanatics,  Montanus  one.     I.  497. 

Fasts,  excessive,  among  Chirstians.    I.  381. — among  Montanists.     I.  506. — The 

Quadragessimal.     I.  530. — Fasting  of  Manichaeans.     II.  360. 
Fnustus,  the  Maniehaean.     IT.  267. 
Felicissi7nus,  his  controversy  and  schism.     IT.  46,  50. 
Felicitas,  a  martyr.     II.  7. 


496  GENERAL       INDEX. 

Felix,  a  disciple  of  Manes.     II.  268. 

Festal  days,  among  Pagans,  devoted  to  licentiousness.  I.  17. — Dispute  as  to 
the  day  for  celebrating  Easter.     I.  523. 

Fire,  martyrs  punished  by.    II.  431. — Slow  fire  a  terrible  punishment.    II.  443. 

Firmilian.     II.  83. 

Flesh,  abstinence  from,  when  and  how  introduced  among  Christians.    I.  380. 

Flight,  many  Christians  resorted  to  it,  in  the  Decian  persecution.  II.  30. — 
among  them,  Cyprian.     II.  54,  56. 

Food,  Manichaean  notions  of.     II.  357. — different  species  of     11.  358. 

Fortunaius,  a  schismatical  bishop.     II.  52,  58. 

Fraud,  an  excommunicable  offence.  II.  69. — pious  frauds.  I.  212,  n.  (2.) — re- 
sorted to  in  II.  Cent,  to  propagate  Christianity.  I.  288. — Manes  fraudu- 
lently corrupted  the  Scriptures.     II.  256. 

Fronto,  an  enemy  of  Christians.    I.  320. 

Galerius,  Emp.  persecuted  the  Christians.     II.  416. 

Gallienus,  Emp.  favored  Christians.     II.  100. 

Gallus,  Emp.  persecuted  Christians.     II.  73. 

Garments,  what  to  be  used  according  to  the  Manichaeans.     II.  360. 

Gatian,  Apostle  of  the  Gauls.     II.  2. 

Gauls,  when  and  by  whom  converted.  I.  111. — the  Bazadois.  I.  112. — Origin 
of  the  Gallic  churches  discussed.  I.  264.  II.  2. — The  Apostles  of  the 
Gaul^.     II.  2. 

Gems  of  Basilides,  with  Abraxas  engraved  on  them.     I.  424. 

Generation  of  the  Son  of  God,  what,  according  to  Sabellius.    II.  222. 

Genulphus,  Apostle  of  the  Gauls.     II.  3. 

Geometry,  study  of,  discouraged.  I.  345. — over-valued  by  Theodotus  and  Arte- 
mon.     I.  518. 

Germans,  converted.     I.  264. — by  whom.     I.  268.     II.  2,  &c. 

Giants,  male  and  female,  of  the  Manichaeans.     II.  285. 

Glaucia,  Basilides  said,  he  received  the  Gospel  from  her.     I.  433,  n.  (3.) 

Glory,  ridiculous  pursuit  of,  by  Paul  of  Samosata.     II.  230. 

Gnosis,  Ti/wcrt?,  what?     I.  30,  228. — It  is  the  disciplina  arcani.     I.  375. 

Gnostics,  greatly  disturbed  the  Apostolic  assemblies.  I.  228. — When  they 
arose.  I.  229,  n.  (3.) — Their  discipline.  I.  230. — They  upset  the  Cliristian 
doctrines.  I.  231. — How  fur  were  they  Platonists?  I.  233,  Ji.  (1.) — Their 
frauds  for  supporting  their  tenets.  I.  236. — Parties  among  them.  I.  237. — 
Their  morals  injured  Christians.  I.  296. — especially  after  the  decease  of 
the  Apostles.  1.  406. — Sects  of  them  enumerated.  I.  407. — In  what  re- 
spects they  all  agreed.     I.  496. 

God^  various  opinions  of  him  by  the  Philosophers.  I.  27,  42. — by  Jews.  I.  54. — 
by  Aramonius.  I.  354. — by  Praxeas,  his  views  of  the  Trinity.  I.  516. — 
by  Manes,  viz-  that  God  is  the  purest  light.  II.  282. — Did  he  admit  two 
Gods?  11.  283.— Attributes  of  his  evil  God.  II.  284.— iiis  good  God  de- 
scribed  at  large.     II.  287. — his  perfections  or  members.     II.  288. 


GENERAL      INDEX,  497 

Gods,  fictitious,  of  the  Pagans.  I.  12. — Immense  diversity  of  them,  (ibid.) — 
How  tliey  dilierod  in  sex,  power,  &-e.  I.  15. — Gods  of  the  En^yplians.  I. 
21.— of  the  Persians.     J.  22. 

Gospels,  tlie  IV.  What  Manes  thought  of  them.  II.  269.— Go<^pol  of  the  N.-u 
zareans  and  Ebionites.  I.  400. — of  Basihdes.  I.  429. — The  Carpocratians 
gave  the  preference  to  the  Gospel  of  Matthew.     I.  444. 

Golhs,  converted.     II.  1. 

Governmenl  of  the  church,  in  II.  Cent.    I.  322.— in  III.  Cent.    II.  115. 

Tpduua  S'va-a-i^i;,  wliaf      II.  443. 

Greek,  the  Christian  loriters  of  the  II.  Cent.     I.  393. — Letters  full  of  mysteries 

I.  473. — Philosophers,  too  much  followed  by  the  early  Christian  doctors.   I. 

341. —  Churches,  in  them  were  the  earliest  combinations  of  church.  I.  329. — 

Religion.    I.  20. — Its  impiety.    I.  25. 
Gregory  of  Tours.    I.  267. 


Hadrian,  Emp.  state  of  Christians  under  him.  I.  295. — He  favored  Christians. 
1.  297. — under  him,  many  Jews  were  converted.     I.  396. 

Hands  imposition  of  by  bps.  II.  79. — Signaculum  of,  among  Manichaeans.  II.  361. 

Happiness  of  God  and  men,  in  what  it  consists,  according  to  the  Orientals.  I.  387. 

Haired  to  mankind,  why  charged  on  Christians  by  Tacitus?     I.  131. 

Heaven,  Basilides  made  365  heavens.  I.  417. — Carpocrates  opened  heaven  to 
all  abandoned  characters.     I.  447. 

Hehraizers,  sect  of,  in  II.  Cent.    I.  396. 

Helena,  the  paramour  of  Simon  Magus.     I.  240. 

,  the  mother  of  Constantine,  favored  Christians.     II.  413. 

Helenists,  who 'i     1.152. 

Heliogabalus,  Emp.  stale  of  the  church  under  him.     II.  11. 

Hell,  souls  punished  there,  according  to  Manes.     II.  377. 

Hemerobaptisls,  a  Jewish  sect.     I.  60. 

Heraclas,  a  Platonic  Philosopher.     I.  348. 

Heracleon,  a  Valentinian  heretic.     I.  472. 

Herculius,  Maximianus,  Emp.     II.  447. 

Heretics,  who  and  what,  in  the  golden  age  of  the  church.  I.  221. — The  Gnostics, 
see  Gnostics. — Simon  Magus  and  Manander,  not  Heretics,  because  never 
Christians.  I.  239,  248.— in  II.  Cent.  I.  396.— Controversy  on  heretical 
baptisms.  II.  78. — Burial  sometimes  denied  to  heretics.  II.  211. — Heretics 
in  the  III.  Cent,  respecting  Trinity  and  personality.  II.  209. — Pride,  ava- 
rice, and  levity,  chief  causes  of  heresies:  see  under  the  names  of  the  prin- 
cipal heretics. 

Hernias,  author  of  the  Shepard.  I.  208. — was  he  Hermes  the  brother  of  Pius? 
I.  209. 

Hermeneutics,  false.    I.  369. — corrupted  by  Origen.    II.  1G5. — Rules  of.  II.  181. 

Hermes  Trisniegistas,  his  Pcemafider  spurious.     I.  288. 

Hermogenes,  his  heresy.     I.  420. 

Herod  the  Gr.  his  character.     I.  49. — his  sons.     I.  50. 

33 


498 


GENERAL     INDEX 


Herodians,  sect  of.     I.  58. 
Hieraciies,  a  Manichsean  sect.     JI,  404. 
Hierax,  his  history.   (903,  &c.)  II.  404. 

Hierarchy,  ecclesiastical.     I.  336.— what,  in  III.  Cent.     II.  119. 
History,  Sacred,  how  to  be  interpreted,  according  to  Origen.     II.  188. 
Hormisdas,  K.  of  Persia,  greatly  favored  Manes.     II.  2G1. 
Horus,  an  ^on  of  Valentinus.    I.  459. 

Human  Nature  of  Ciirist,  Paul  of  Samosata's  opinion  of  it.    II.  238. 
Hydroparastalcc,  or  Aydroparastntee.     I.  482. 

Hyle,  one  of  the  first  principles  of  all  things,  with  Manichseans.     II.  275. 
Hymns  in  praise  of  Christ,  suppressed  by  Paul  of  Samosata.    11.  230. 
Hyposlnsies,  Sabellius  denied  three  Hypostasies  in  God.    II.  222.— So  did  Paul 
of  Samosata.    II.  228,  235. 


IMatry,  punished  by  excommunication.     II.  68. 

Ignatius,  his  Epistles.     I.  204.— Bp.  of  Antioch,  and  a  martyr.     I.  294. 

Illumination  of  the  H.  Sp.  necessary  to  a  right  interpretation  of  Scripture,  said 

Origen.    II.  157. — What  he  conceived  this  to  be.     II.  197. 
Impassible  God,  II.  214. — Christ,  Manicha3an,  what?     II.  295. 
Impiety  of  the  Pagans.     I.  25. — of  the  Gnostics,  especially  Carpocrates.    I. 

440. — his  pernicious  dogmas.     I.  445. 
Imposition  of  hands,  its  great  efficacy.     II.  79. 
Independence  of  all  the  early  churches.    I.  196. — gradually  subverted.    I.  329. — 

contrary  to  the  wishes  of  Christians  {ibid.) — Independence  of  bps.   II.  89. 
Indians,  converted.    I.  262. 

Indifference  of  all  actions  asserted  by  Carpocrates.     I.  378. 
Interpretation  of  Scripture,  in  II.  Cent.  I.  367.— perverse.     I.  368. — the  arcane 

and  philosophic.     I.  376. — Origen's  system  of  hermeneutics.     II.  156. 
Irenaeus,  on  the  primacy  of  the  Romish  church.     I.  325. — his  Works.     I.  393. 
Isidorus,  the  son  of  Basilides.     I.  418,  426. 
Italians,  when  and  by  whom  converted.     I.  111. 


Jaldahoth  of  the  Ophites.     I.  484. 

James  the  Apostle,  how  put  to  death.  I.  121. — his  Gate  of  Jesus,  what?  I.  121.— 
was  he  the  first  bp.  of  Jerusalem?   I.  172. 

Jerusalem,  the  first  centre  of  Christianity.    I.  102.  n. — Destruction  of.   I.  124. 

Form  of  the  church  there.  I.  145. — its  rank  and  high  estimation.  ],  197, 
n.  (1.) — Some  Christians  expected  the  city  lobe  rebuilt.  I.  397. — Christians 
migrate  thither  from  Pella,  in  times  of  Hadrian.  I.  399. — Did  the  Ebion- 
ilcs  worship  it?  I.  405. — Why  Irenaeus  placed  the  churcii  of  Rome  before 
that  of  Jerusalem.     I.  325. 


GENERAL      INDEX.  499 

Jestis.  distinguished  from  Christ  by  Ccrinthiis.  T.  251. — and  by  Basilides.  I. 
431. — called  t//oTuT&7»  by  Sabellius.  II.  223. — Krror.s  of  Paul  of  Saniosata 
respectinf^  him.  II.  228. — The  passive  Jesus  of  Planes,  what?  II.  302. — 
Mission  and  ofliccs  of,  according  to  Manes.     II.  340. 

Jt-wishy  Church,  relation  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles  to  it.  I.  88. — Republic,  over- 
thrown. 1. 124. — Priesthood,  iha  claimed  resemblance  of  Christian  ministers 
to  it.     I.  337. — Opinions,  many  received  by  Christians.     II.  24  I. 

Jews,  their  state  when  Christ  came.  I.  49. — Their  worship  corrupted.  I.  52. — 
Their  false  opinions  of  God,  angels,  &c.  1.54. — Divided  into  various  sects. 
I.  58. — Jews  out  of  Palestine.  I.  80. — These  first  addressed  by  the  Apos- 
tle.s.  I.  101.— They  the  first  to  harrass  Christians.  I.  120.— Their  hatred 
to  the  Christians.  I.  123. — They  accused  the  Christians.  I.  294. — Slaughter 
of  Jews  under  Hadrian.     I.  299. — Jews  excluded  from  Jerusalem.    I.  397. 

Johru  the  precursor  of  Christ.     I.  86. 

,  the  Apostle.     I.  143.— Christians  of  St.  John.     I.  59. 

Joseph,  of  Arimathea,  did  he  preach  in  Britain?     I.  269. 

Jude,  the  brother  of  Christ,  his  descendants  sought  for  by  Domitian.     I,  144. 

Judgment,  the  last,  in  what  sense  near,  according  to  Tertulllan.     I.  511,  n.  (4.) 

Julia  Mammcca.     II.  13. 

Justin,  Martyr,  his  Apology.  I.  300,  303. — his  martyrdom.  I.  309. — his  lifo 
assailed  by  the  Philosophers.  1.  320. — He  held  some  mystic  notions.  I. 
386.— His  writinors.     I.  393. 


Kahhala,  or  Cabbala,  did  Valentinns  draw  from  it?     T.  454,  7i.  (1.) 
Kingdom,  the  Neiv,  of  Jesus  Christ.     II.  246. — A  kingdom  of  light  and  a  king- 
dom of  darkness,  accordinfj  to  Manes.     II.  275. 


Labor,  some  viewed  all  worldly  business  an  obstacle  to  piety.     I.  317. 

Lapsed,  numerous  in  the  Decian  persecution.  II.  31. — Controversy  respecting 
them.     II.  38. — denied  restoration  by  the  Novatians.     II.  66. 

Latin  veusions  of  the  Bible  in  II.  Cent.  I.  282,  n.  (1.) — Latin  Writers  in  the 
II.  Cent.     I.  394. 

Laurentius,  a  martyr.     II.  91. 

Law,  the  Mosaic,  contest  respecting  its  obligation.  I.  215. — rejected  by  many, 
in  times  of  Hadrian.  I.  397. — how  interpreted  by  Origen.  II.  185. — of 
God,  spurned  by  Carpocrates.  I.  445. — ]\Iarcion's  opinion  of  it.  I.  490. — 
Montanus'  views  of  it.     I.  504. 

Law,  Ecclesiastical,  or  Canon,  origin  of.  I.  335. — To  whom  belonged  the  su- 
preme power  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  in  III.  Cent.     II.  116. 

Learned  Men,  few  among  the  first  Christian  teachers.     I.  200. 

Learning,  human,  its  utility  disputed.     I.  344. — prohibited.     II.  141. 

Lectors,  in  the  early  church.     II.  117.— in  IV.  Cent.     II.  433. 


500  GENERAL      INDEX. 

Legion^  Thundering^  it?  miracle  examined.     I.  311. — Thebccan  decimated  for 

martyrdom.  II.  107. 
LeonidaSf  a  martyr.  II.  7. 
LibellaUci,  who  ?     II.  32. 

Libellus  Pads,  controversy  about  such.     II.  39. 
LV)crty  of  the  churches:  see  Independence. 
Licinius,  Emp.  his  liistory,  persecution,  and  death.     II.  479. 
Liege,  church  of.    I.  269. 
Light,  by  the  Orientals,  accounted  the  seat  of  goodness  and  bliss.    I.  478,  489, 

387.— God  is  light;   also  the   Saviour.     II.  287.— Manes  dreamed  of  a 

kingdom  of  light.  II.  275. — supposed  God  to  be  intelligent  Light.  II.  287. — 

and  to  have  twelve  members.     II.  288. 
Literal  Sense  of  Scripture,  despised  by  Origen.     II.  167. 
Logic,  propriety  of  a  Christian's  studying  it.     I.  344. 
Logos,  (Aoyoi)  of  Plato,  Pliilo,  and  the  Mystics.   I.  385.— of  Origen.    II.  193.— 

of  Paul  of  Samosata.     II.  237. 
Lord's  Day,  observed  by  Christians.     I.  145. — Asiatics  did  not  limit  Easter  to 

it.     I.  531. 
Lot,  an  Apostle  elected  by  lot.     I.  102. 
Lucan,  a  heretic.     I.  486. 
Lucius  king  of  England,  did  he  invite  Christian  teachers  to  England?  I.  270. — 

He  was  a  fictitious  character,  or  never  existed.     I.  272. 
Lucius,  a  martyr.     II.  75. 
Lyons  and  Vienne,  church  of.     I.  264. — persecuted.     I.  305,  n.  (3.)  309. 

M. 

Macrianus,  an  enemy  to  Christians.    II.  91. 

Magians,  was  Manes  a  Magian  ?     II.  259. 

Magic.     I.  55.— Did  Christ  write  books  on  it?     I.  364.— of  Marcus.     I.  476. 

Magistrates,  Roman,  equitable  to  Christians.     I.  318,  n.  (3.)  II.  29. 

Magistri  of  the  Manichseans,  what?     II.  401. 

Malchion,  a  rhetorician  who  confuted  Paul  of  Samosata.     II.  228. 

Man,  his  destiny,  according  to  Oriental  philosophy.  I.  45. — according  to  Sa- 
turniiius.  1.410. — according  to  Basilides.  1.417. — Creation  of,  ridiculously 
described.  I.  462. — How  man  came  to  be  a  hiped.  II.  285. — The  first 
Man  of  Manes.     II.  305. 

Manes,  was  an  Oriental  Philosopher.  I.  42. — His  doctrines  explained  at  full 
length,  in  more  than  a  hundred  and  fifty  pages.     II.  251-404. 

Manichccans,  their  evil  deeds  stated.     II.  251. 

Marcion,  an  Oriental  Philosopher.     I.  42. — his  system  explained.     I.  486,  489. 

Marcosians,  heretics,     I.  473. 

Marcus,  Emp.   I.  302. — Was  he  as  great  as  generally  supposed?   I.  306,  n.  (4.) 

,  a  bishop.     I.  396. — a  Valentinian  heretic.     I.  473. 

Marriage,  when  and  why  disapproved  by  Christians.  I.  380. — accounted  a  Sa- 
tanic institution  by  Saturninus.     I.  416,  n. 


G  K  N  K  U  A  L      I  N  D  K  X  .  501 

Martial,  an  Apostle  of  the  Gauls.     II.  2. 

Martyrs,  were  all  the  Apostles  martyrs?  I.  106,  7J.  (1.) — Extravarrant  venera- 
tion for  martyrs.  I.  135. — Their  number,  how  f^reat.  I.  137. — Manv  raf^hly 
sougiit  martyrdom.  II.  439.  I.  236. — Did  such  die  magiianiinously  ?  I. 
307. — ]\Iartyrs  under  IMareus.  I.  309. — Their  cruel  tortures.  I.  319,  ». — 
Basilides  supposed,  martyrdom  purged  away  all  sins.  I.  427,  n. — He  thought 
ill  of  the  martyrs.  I.  435,  n.  (3.)— Many  escaped  it  by  paying  money.  II. 
6. — Martyrs  under  Decius.  II.  27. — They  give  Libellos  Pads  ;  whence,  a 
new  controversy.  II.  39 — under  Valerian.  II.  91. — Martyrs  of  every  ago 
and  sex.  II.  95,  97. — under  Diocletian.  II.  106,  426. — Aganensian  mar- 
tyrs.  II.  107. — Martyrs  supposed  to  ascend  immediately  to  glory.    II.  118. 

Maturnus,  Apostle  of  the  Germans.     I.  269. — Apostle  of  the  Gauls.     II.  2. 

Matter,  coeternal  with  God,  said  Hermogenes.  I.  621. — and  the  Manichaoans. 
II.  276. 

Matthias,  the  new  Apostle.     I.  102. 

Mauritius,  a  general  and  Martyr.     II.  107. 

Maximian,  Emp.  persecutor.     II.  416. 

Maximilla,  a  fanatical  woman.     I.  497. 

Maximinus  Tlirax,  Emp.  a  persecutor.     II.  18. 

Maximus,  bp.  competitor  with  Cyprian.     II.  68. 

Melancholy,  a  source  of  heresy.     I.  499. 

Melito,  his  apology.     I.  303. 

Menander,  a  Gnostic  heretic.  1. 248. — Was  Saturninus  his  disciple  ?  1. 41 1.  n.  (3.) 

Messiah,  Jewish  opinion  of  the.  I.  65. — All  Jews  expected  him.  I.  56,  &lc.  n, 
(1.) — Did  the  Sadducees?  I.  57. — Mareion  said,  Christ  only  feigned  him- 
self the  Messiah.     I.  492.— Kingdom  of  the  Messiah.     II.  245. 

Metempsychosis,  of  Basilides.     I.  418. — of  Manichaoans.     II.  373. 

Metropolitan  Bishops,  whence  their  authority.     I.  335. 

Metus,  (Fear,)  an  ^on  of  Valentinus.     I.  463. 

Millenarian  reign  of  Christ :   see  Chilliasts.     II.  444,  446. 

Mines,  Christians  condemned  to  the.     II.  95. 

Ministers  of  the  Church,  elected  by  the  church.  I.  103.— in  III.  Cent.  II.  116.— 
not  always  learned,  but  always  sincere  believers.     II.  119. 

Miracles,  not  wrought  by  the  Apostles,  but  by  Christ  at  their  supplication.  I. 
100, 72.  (1.) — in  II.  Cent.  I.  278. — Testimonies  of  the  ancients  cited.  I. 
279,  n.  (2.) — Middleton's  opinion  examined,  (ibid.) — Miracle  of  the  Thun- 
dering Legion.  I.  311. — Those  of  Marcus,  what  to  be  thought  of.  I.  476.^ 
Miracles  in  III.  Cent.     II.  4,  93. 

Misery  human,  whence,  according  to  Origen.     II.  191. 

Milhra  of  the  Persians  and  Manichaoans.     II.  303. 

Mohammed  resembled  Manes  in  several  respects.     II.  265,  268. 

Monarchians,  heretics.     I.  513. 

Monks,  their  origin.     I.  68. — from  Egypt  and  the  Platonic  philosophy.     I.  380. 

MoTitanists,  the  first  disturbers  of  Christian  liberty.  I.  330,  tl — were  Chiliasts? 
II.  246. 

MontanuSj  his  heresy  explained.     I.  497. 


502  GENERAL       INDEX. 

Moon,  dreams  of  IManes  about  it.  11.  296. — did  he  place  Christ  in  it?  If.  296.— 
did  M;mic'h;t)ans  worship  it?     II.  298. 

Moral  Sense  of  Scripture.     II.  173. 

Moral  Discipline,  before  Christ.  I.  24. — of  the  Oriental  Philosopliers.  I.  46. — 
of  liie  Jews.  I.  56. — of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  I.  76. — of  Ammo- 
nius  Saccas  and  the  new  Platonists.     I.  357. — of  Satnrninus.     I.  414. 

Moral  Theology,  twofold,  for  the  perfect  and  for  common  people,  introduced  in 
11.  Cent.  I.  380.— of  Basilides.  I.  433.— of  Carpocrates.  I.  444.— of  Va- 
lenlinus.  I.  465. — of  Marcion.  I.  492. — of  Montanus,  very  severe.  I. 
601. — He  corrupted  the  discipline  of  Christ.     I.  504. 

Morals  of  Christians  in  III.  Cent.     II.  137. 

Moses,  excessive  veneration  of,  produced  schism.  I.  219. — and  a  sect  of  Hebra- 
izers  in  II.  Cent.  I.  396. — Opinion  of  the  Nazareans  respecting  the  law 
of  Moses.     I.  400.— Opinion  of  Origcn  of  it.     II.  185. 

Mysteries,  among  the  Pagans.  I.  18. — little  known,  (ibid.) — what  done  in  thetn. 
(ibid.) — introduced  among  the  Romans  by  Hadrian.  I.  19,  n.  (].) — The 
Ciiristians  imitated  them.  I.  373,  n.  (2.) — falsely  explained  by  Christian 
Philosophers.  I.  378. — Various  dogmas  concerning  them  discussed.  I. 
373,  390. 

Mystic  Theology,  its  origin.  I.  372. — from  Egyptian  and  the  Platonic  philo- 
sophy.  I.  380. — Mystic  union  of  the  soul  with  God.  I.  383. — according 
to  Saturninus.    I.  413. — Growth  of  mystic  theology  under  Origen.   II.  190. 

Mystical  Interpretation  of  Scripture,  its  origin  and  Nature.     II.  165. 

Narcissus,  an  Eremite.     II.  199. 

A^a^ure,  what  ?  according  to  the  Manichieans.     11.275. 

Nazardcans,  were  of  the  II.  Cent,  and  not  the  first.  I.  222,  n.  (2.) — Their  dis- 
cipline.    I.  400.— Their  Gospel.     I.  400,  «Sic.  n.  (1.) 

JSepos,  refuted  the  Allegorists  and  revived  Chiliasm.     II.  244. 

Nero,  Emp. — Did  he  favor  Christians?     I.  120,  n. — his  persecution.     I.  97. 

Nicolaitans,  the  earliest  Gnostic  heretics.     I.  249, 

Niglii,  accounted  more  sacred  than  day,  by  the  Essenes.  I.  71. — Why  tho 
Orientals  regarded  the  night  so  highly.     I.  73,  n. 

Noclus,  his  doctrine  fully  explained.     II.  210. 

Novatian,  his  schism.     II.  59. 

Novatus,  his  disagreement  with  Cyprian.  11.  45. — Was  he  a  schismatic  Pres- 
byter?   II.  55. 

N«vs  (Nus)  the  Son  of  God,  why  sent  into  the  world,  according  to  Basilides] 
I.  418. — according  to  Valentinus.     I.  380. 

Nuptials,  second,  regarded  as  very  criminal.    I.  380,  382.  II.  68. 


Oblations  of  the  early  Christians.     I.  147,  179. 

OJice,  sacerdatal  of  Christ :  see  Satisfaction  of  Christ. 

Omophorus,  in  the  Manichaean  system  of  the  world,  what?    U.  330,  385. 


GENERAL       INDEX.  503 

Ophites^  their  Iiistory  and  doctrines.     I.  483. 

Grades^  the  Pagan,  said  to  have  hiiided  Christ  as  God.  I.  364. — impeded  by 
the  presence  of  Christians,     II.  93. — in  the  times  of  Diocletian.     II.  414. 

Orb,  of  the  Manichajans,  what?     I.  370. 

Ordination  of  ministers,  in  whom  the  power  of.  IL  117. — in  the  Apostolical 
chnrehes.     I.  179. 

Oriental  Pkiiosophy^  held  two  Deities.  I.  40. — its  doctrine  of  the  world,  (ibid.) 
— divided  into  various  sects  and  opinions.  I.  41. — Many  Jews  embraced 
it.     L  78, 

Origen^  refuted  Celsus,  I,  320. — was  devoted  to  the  philosophy  of  Ammonias 
Saccas.  I.  348. — instructed  the  Arabs.  II.  1. — highly  esteemed  by  Julia 
Mamma;a.  II.  13. — Plots  against  his  life.  II.  20, — His  corresi)ondeiice 
with  Emperors.  II.  23, — tortured  under  Decius.  II.  29. — applied  philoso- 
phy to  theology,  perniciously.  II.  143. — Estimate  of  his  writings.  II. 
147. — His  piety.  II.  148. — His  genius.  II.  149, — His  allegories  fully  consid- 
ered. II.  165.— His  death,   II.  202. — Controversies  respecting  him.   U.  200. 


Pagans,  state  of,  when  Christ  came.  I,  11. — were  superstitious.  I.  12. — Na- 
tions in  which  Christianity  existed  in  II.  Cent.  I.  260. — Pagans  excited  by 
their  priests,  persecuted  Christians,     I.  319. — See  also  Persecution. 

Painter,  Manes  was  a  distinguished  painter.     II.  259. 

Palace  of  Diocletian,  Christians  in  it.    II.  113. 

Pallium  philosophicum,  retained  by  Christian  Philosophers.  I.  340,  n.  (1.)— Did 
the  Ascetics  wear  it  as  a  mark  of  distinction?     I.  383.  II.  198. 

Pantccnus,  converted  several  nations.  I.  261.— was  the  first  to  recommend  phi. 
losophy  to  Christians,  I.  339.— perverted  the  true  interpretation  of  Scrip- 
ture  I.  369, 

Papias,  a  Chiliast     IL  245. 

Parishes,  in  the  primitive  church.     I.  150,  r?.  (3.) 

Paschal  Supper,  observed  by  the  ancient  Christians.     I.  627. 

Passion  of  Christ,  held  to  be  only  apparent  not  real,  by  many  Gnostics,  and 
particularly  by  Basilides.  I.  428,  432. — Opinion  of  Valentinian.  I.  465.— 
of  Bardcsaues.  I.  479. — of  Marcion.  I.  493. — Did  Sabellius  ascribe  tli» 
passion  to  the  Father?     11.223. 

Passive  Jesus  of  the  Manichseans.    II.  302.— his  liberation,     II.  379. 

Paires  Apostolici     I.  200. 

Patriarchs,  origin  of.     I.  336. 

Pairipassians.     I.  513. — their  errors.     II.  212. 

Patronage,  right  of.     I.  165,  n.  (2.) 

Pauk  his  conversion.  I.  105.— martyrdom.  I.  138.— Did  he  convert  the  Britons? 
I.  270.— The  Ebionites  reviled  him.  I.  404.— His  Epistles,  how  regarded 
by  the  Manichc-eans?     11.273. 

Paul,  an  Apostle  of  the  Gauls.     II.  2. 

,  of  Thebais,  the  choriphaius  of  Eremites,  his  history,     II.  190,  198, 

. ,  of  Samosata,  his  history  and  heresy.     II.  228. 


504  GENERAL       INDEX. 

PauUans  or  Paiilimiists.     11.  229. 

Paupers,  were  all  the  Christians  in  the  I.  Cent,  poor  people?  I.  116. — Care  of 
the  poor,  by  Cyprian.     II.  52. — How  treated  by  the  Manichaeans.    II.  365. 

Peace  was  not  universal  in  the  Rom.  Empire,  under  Augustus.  I.  11. — External 
peace  of  the  church,  led  Christians  to  self-indulgence.    11.  31,  115. 

Pella,  a  refuge  of  Christians.     I.  398.— Their  return  to  Jerusalem.     I.  399. 

Penitence  of  the  Lapsed.     II.  43.— was  it  discarded  by  Novatian?     II.  70. 

Penitents  in  the  early  church.     II.  22. — Discipline  of.     II.  38. 

People  the  common,  had  great  power  in  the  church  in  III.  Cent.  II.  117. — in 
the  Apostolic  churches.     I.  179. 

Peregrinus,  an  Apostle  of  the  Gauls.     II.  3. 

Perfections  of  God,  according  to  Manes,  what?    II.  288. 

Peripatetic  Pliilosopliers.     I.  35. 

Perpetua,  a  martyr.     II.  7. 

Persecutions,  in  I.  Cent.  I.  120. — Were  there  just  ten?  I.  125. — Causes  of. 
I.  129. — The  Neronian.  I.  138. — under  Domitian.  I.  142. — under  Tnijan. 
I.  292. — under  Hadrian.  I.  296. — under  Antoninus.  I.  300. — under  Mar- 
cus Aurelius.  I.  302,  308. — under  Sept.  Severus.  I.  317.  II.  5. — Many 
Christians  saved  themselves  from  it,  by  paying  money.  II.  6. — under  Max- 
imin.  II.  18. — under  Decius.  II.  26. — It  led  mnny  to  apostatize.  II.  33. — 
under  Gallus.  11.  73. — under  Valerian.  II.  91. — under  Aurelian.  II.  100. 
— under  Diocletian,  Maximian,  &c.  in  IV.  Cent.     II.  416. 

Persians,  their  religion  different  in  the  different  sects.     I.  22. 

Person  of  Christ:  see  Christ  and  Jesus. — Did  Sabellius  admit  distinct  Persona 
in  the  Trinity?  II.  218.— What  Noetus  thought.  II.  210.— Beryllus  de- 
nied tripersonality.  11.  225. — The  Patripassians.  I.  513. — Paul  of  Samo- 
Bata.     II.  228. 

Peter,  his  martyrdom.  I.  138. — Did  he  cause  Simon  M.  to  fall  down?  I.  242. 
—Was  he  Prince  of  the  Apostles?    II.  126. 

Pharisees,  their  origin  and  opinions.     I.  62. 

Philetus,  a  heretic.     I.  222. 

Philip  the  Apostle,  did  he  send  Joseph  a  missionary  to  Britain  ?    I.  269. 
■   ■  the  Emperor,  was  he  a  Christian?    II.  22. 

Philo  Judseus,  an  eclectic  Philosopher.  I.  39. — his  mystical  precepts.  I.  384. — 
his  views  of  the  Scriptures.    II.  166,  168. 

Philosophers,  they  censured  but  did  not  correct  the  popular  superstitions.  I.  27. 
— Many  of  them  propagated  pestiferous  errors.  I.  28. — Were  tliey  all  Athe- 
ists? {ibid.) — Various  of  their  sects  and  dogmas  injurious  to  religion.  I. 
S3. — Christian  Philosophers  did  some  service  to  our  holy  religion.  I.  282 
—but  the  Pagan  Philosophers  were  its  enemies.  I.  303.  II.  103. — especiall3% 
I.  219. — Opinion  of  the  Oriental  Philosophers  respecting  Christ  and  Chris- 
tians.   I.  365. 

Philosophy,  the  Grecian  and  the  Oriental.  I.  30. — The  Stoic  philosophy  of 
the  Emp.  Marcus,  how  far  injurious  to  Christianity.  I.  306,  n.  (4.) — 
Study  of  philosophy  unsettled  Christians  and  corrupted  discipline.  I. 
339. — Early  teachers   prized   and    lauded  it    extravagantly.      I.   339.—. 


GENERAL      INDEX.  505 

PhilosopTiy,  Controversy  among^  Chiatians  on  its  iiae.  I.  343. — Ammonius  Saccus 
attempted  to  combine  all  sects  of  Philosophers.  J.  351. — New  Platoniam 
corrupted  the  exposition  of  the  Bible  greatl3^  I.  369. — Christian  doctrines 
were  explained  away  and  perverted  by  philosophy.  I.  372. — Basilides.  I. 
416. — Carpocrates,  a  striking  example.  I.  439. — Brief  Summary  of  Ori- 
ental and  Gnostic  philosophy.  I.  468,  n.  (4.) — Theodotus  and  Artemon 
prized  philosophy  too  highly.  I.  518. — Philosophy  was  applied  to  theology 
with  bad  effects.  II.  143. — Origen's  philosophy.  II.  150. — his  opinion  of 
philosophy.     II.  154. 

PhygcUus,  was  he  a  heretic?     I.  222. 

Piety,  a  show  of,  led  many  to  follow  the  heretics.     I.  406. 

Platonic  philosophy  gave  rise  to  Mystics.     I.  385. 

Platonists,  their  doctrines  of  God  and  the  human  soul.  I.  37. — how  far  ap- 
proved by  the  Gnostics.  I.  233.— The  New  Platonists.  I.  348.— Their 
doctrines  led  Christians  to  extreme  austerity  in  religion.  I.  380. — and  to 
impiety  towards  Christ.  I.  439. — They  were  enemies  to  the  Christians. 
II.  103. 

Pleasures  of  the  life  to  come,  in  what  to  consist,  according  to  Chiliasts? 
II.  249. 

nx««a)^a  of  the  Oriental  philosophy.  I.  43. — of  Simon  Magus.  I.  246. — of 
Cerinthus.     I.  251.— of  Basilides.     I.  419,  n.  (3.)— of  Valentinus.    I.  459. 

Pliny,  his  account  of  the  worship  of  the  prim.  Christians.  I.  186,  7i.  (1.) — and 
of  the  number  of  Christians.  I.  276.— His  favor  to  Christians.  I.  291,  n.  (3.) 

Plotinus,  many  of  his  disciples  became  Christians.     II.   104. 

Polanders,  when  and  by  whom  said  to  be  converted,     I.  111. 

Polemic  Theology,  unavoidable,  in  II.  Cent.  I.  406. 

Polycarfs  Epistle.     I.  207. — his  martyrdom.     I.  309. 

Pomp,  the  episcopal,  of  Paul  of  Samosata.     II.  230. 

Pontifs  of  the  Jews.  I.  51. — Romish,  owe  much  of  their  power  to  controver- 
sies. I.  326. — their  power  very  limited  in  III.  Cent.  II.  80. — No  bishops 
then  subject  to  them.     II.  89,  121. 

Poor :  see  Paupers. 

Populace,  when  excited  by  pagan  priests,  harrassed  Christians.  1.319: — see 
also  under  Persecutions. — They  outraged  holy  men  when  dead.     I.  319,  n. 

Porphyry,  his  respect  for  Christ.     I.  365. — was  hostile  to  Christians.    II.  103. 

Potamon  of  Alexandria,  was  he  the  author  of  the  eclectic  philosophy  ?  I.  38. 

Pothinus.    I.  269.- He  died  for  the  glory  of  Christ.     I.  309. 

Prayer,  mystical.  I.  389. — The  Pagan  prayers  absurd  and  impious.  I.  17. — 
Prayer  the  chief  part  of  the  Manicheean  worship.     II.  390. 

Praxeas,  an  adversary  of  Montanus.     I.  513,  n.  (1.) 

Predictions  of  IMontanus  and  the  Montanists,  did  not  come  to  pass.  I.  511,  n. 
(4.)_of  Cyprian.     II.  75. 

Presentation,  right  of,  whence  derived.     I.  165.  n.  (2.) 

Presidents,  the  Roman,  reluctantly  persecuted  the  Christians.    I.  318,  n.  (3. 1 

n.  29. 

Presbytership  of  Origen,  a  cause  of  contention.     II.  203. 


506  GENERAL      INDEX. 

Presiy/ero,  were  the  vii.  Deacons,  (Acts  iv.)  Presbyters?  1.  156. — Their  ofTico 
in  the  earl}-  church.    I.   161. — Ruling  and  Teaching  Elders,  laboring,  &c. 

I.  162,  n.  (2.)— Their  election  and  stipends.  I.  164.— in  II.  Cent.  I.  322.— 
of  Carthage,  disagree  with  Cyprian.  II.  5-1. — Rights  and  authority  in  iii. 
Cent.    II.  117  &L  131. 

Pride  produced  heresies,  e.  g.  Paul  of  Samosata.    II.  228. — also  persecutions. 

II.  416. 

Priesthood,  Origin  was  divested  of.     II.  205,  &c. — imparted  from  God.  II.  134. 
Pricsls,  Pagan,  their  character.     I.  17. — very  hostile  to  Christians.     I.  291, 

296. — excite  persecution  in  IV.  Cent.     II.  412,  414.     See  Teachers. 
Primacy  of  any  church.  II.  124. — of  the  Romisli  church,  according  to  Irenaua, 

I.  328.  II.   125. 

Principle  of  all  things,  the  first;  is  it  iivofold,  good  and  bad?  I.  478,  489. — 
The  two  of  Manichasans.  II.  275. — their  different  attributes.  II.  284. — • 
The  good  one  of  Manes,  fully  described.  II.  287. — and  his  Attributes. 
(ibid,  n.) 

Prisca,  wife  of  Diocletian,  favored  Christians.     II.  413. 

Priscilla,  a  fanatical  woman.     I.  497. 

Procurators,  the  Roman,  vexed  the  Jews.     I.  51. — A  bishop  and  Ducenarius. 

II.  230. 

Propagation  of  Christianity,  why  so  rapid]  I.  115. — in  II.  Cent.  I.  259. — Causes 
of  it.    I.  277. — in  III.  Cent.    II.  1. — and  causes.   II.  4. 

Prophetic  Oracles,  how  to  be  explained,  according  to  Origen.     II.  188. 

Prophets,  in  the  prim,  church.  I.  165. — Judges  of  them.  I.  166. — Their  func- 
tions not  limited  to  predicting.  I.  166  n.  (1.) — Prophets  of  Basilides,  what? 
I.  418. — Montanus  and  his  women  fanatical.    I.  497. 

n^oc-wjra  of  Sabellias,  in  the  Trinity.    II.  220.— of  Paul  of  Samosata.  II.  236. 

Psalms  of  David  substituted  for  Hymns,  by  Paul  of  Samosata.    11.  230. 

Phtjchology  of  Origen.    II.  151. 

Ptolomy,  a  Valentinian  heretic.     I.  471. 

Ptolomaites,  a  Valentian  sect.     I.  471. 

Publicans,  they  vexed  the  Jews.     I.  51. 

Purgation  of  souls :  see  Soul,  Mystics,  Gnostics,  and  I.  420,  n.  (7.) — accord- 
ing to  Origen.     II.  199. 

Purgatcd  Souls,  state  of  after  death.  II.  367  &c.  369,  &c.— state  of  the  half- 
purgated,  II.  373. 

Pythagoras,  compared  with  Christ.     II.  104. 

Q. 

Quartndecimani,  christians  who  kept  Easter  with  the  Jews.     I.  528. 
Quietists,  discipline  for,  by  the  Mystics.    I.  388. 
Quietudcy  predicated  of  God.    I.  387. 

Uain,  ridiculous  opinions  of  the  Manichaeans  about.     II.  382. 
Reason,  made  the  interpreter  of  Scripture  by  Origen.     II.  157. 


GENEKAL      INDEX.  507 

Itecogmtinns  of  Clement,  eslim.itc  of  them.     I.  203. 

RtconcillaUim^  denied  to  the  Lnpsed  by  the  Novati.ms.     11.  6G. 

Redemption  of  mankind,  how  Christ  himself  exphiincd  it.     I.  427. 

Reign  of  the  ^Messiah,  opinion  of  the  Jew??.     II.  245. 

Relics  of  Martyrs,  venerated.     T.  136,  n  (2.) 

RcligioJis,  the  Pagan,  why  they  did  not  persecute  each  other.  1.  14. — Thev  led 
to  impiety.  I.  17,  24. — Religions  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  I.  20. — of 
the  Indians,  Persians,  &c.  I.  21. — of  the  Egyptian.s.  I.  21. — of  the  Per- 
sians. I.  22. — All  framed  for  state  purposes.  I.  23. — and  therefore,  cither 
civil  or  military,  (ibid.) — Arguments  of  their  priests  in  support  of  them. 

I.  27. — Ammonius  Saccas.     I.  361. — Religion  of  the  Jews  in  time  of 
Christ,  corrupted.     I.  61. 

Religion,  the  Christian,  where  planted  in  I.  Cent.  I.  109. — Learning  and  elo- 
quence not  the  instruments  of  its  propagation.  I.  278. — Its  simplicity  cor« 
rupted  by  philosophy.     I.  344. — Its  doctrines  perverted,     I.  372. 

Representatives  of  churches,  namely,  the  Bishops  assembled  in  councils.    I.  332. 

Resurrection  of  the  body,  denied  by  Basilides.     I.  429. — Origen's  opinion  of  it 

II.  164. 

Rhetoricians,  they  were  opposers  of  Christianity.     I.  320. 

Riches  of  God,  according  to  Manes.     II.  288. 

Rigor,  of  the  Gnostics :  see  Gnostics. — of  Montanua.     I.  506. 

Roman  Empire,  its  state  when  Christ  came.  I,  9, — Its  fticilities  and  obstacles. 
I.  9. — Its  religion.  I.  20. — corrupted  by  other  Pagan  systems.  I.  20. — 
Impiety  of  the  Romans.     I.  25. — Why  they  disturbed  Christians.     I.  129. 

Romish  Chirch,  had  great  influence  in  II.  Cent.  I.  323. — Tertullian  and  Irenacua 
respecting  it.     I.  325. — Yet  its  powers  were  limited.     II.  80,  125. 

Russiaiis,  when  and  by  whom  said  to  be  converted.    I.  111. 

S. 

Sabcllius  and  Sahellians,  their  history  and  errors.     II.  215. 

Sabiin,  what  sect  of  Christians'?    I,  60. 

Sacrijicers,  a  class  of  the  Lapsed.     II.  32. 

Sacrijices,  formerly  offered  to  the  Gods.    L  17. — of  the  Essenes,  nocturnal  and 

wholly  burned.     I,  71. 
Sadducees,  did  they  expect  a  Messiah.     L  56,  n.  (1.) — their  doctrines.     I.  62. — 

Josephus  represents  them  as  bad  men.     I.  65. 
Salaries  or  stipends  of  Presbyters,  in  the  primitive  church.     I.  184. 
Saltation  religious,  of  the  Essenes.     I.  74. 

Samaritans.     I.  79. — Apostles  endeavored  to  convert  them,     I.  101. 
Sanctity  austere,  among  Christians,  derived  from  Platonism.     I.  380,  II.  66.— 

Perverse  ideas  of  by  the  Mystics,     L  386,— in  III.  Cent.     11,  137,  195. 
Sanhedrim  of  the  Jews.  I,  52, — Its  powers  indicated  as  merged  in  Christ,  I.  94. 
Sapor,  a  Christian  king  of  Persia.     II.  260. 
Satan,  according  to  Saturninns.     I.  412. 
Satisfaction  of  Christ,  denied  Ly  the  Gnostics,  especial, y  Carpojrates.     I.  440. 

— by  Valentinus.     I.  468,  n.  (3.) — Origen's  opinion  of  it.     II.  1G2. 


SOS  GENERAL     INDEX. 

Sa/u>-nrnz«,  liis  philosophy.    I.  409.— His  system  explained  by  himself.    1.411. 

Sulurninus,  an  Apostle  of  tht;  Gauls.     II.  2. 

Sc'iisfn  respecting  the  obligation  of  the  Mosaic  law.  I.  Cent.     I.  219.— of  Feliciasi- 

mus.     II.  50. 
Schools,  episcopal,  oiigin  of    I.  163,  n. — the  cateciietic  at  Alexandria,  cultivated 

philosophy,     I.  339.  II.  206.— of  Ammonius  Saceas.     I.  348. 
Scots  conversion  of     II.  2. 

Scriptures,  translations  of,  various  in  II.  Cent.     I.  282,  n. — The  reading  of,  re- 
commended to  all.    (ihid.) — Interpretation  of,  in  11.  Cent.     I.  367. — Ori- 
gen's  mode  of  interpreting.    II.  156. — The  allegorical  sense  of    II.  165. — 
How  far  inscrutable,  according  to  Origen.     II.  180. — Copies  of,  burned  by 
order  of  Diocletian.  II.  423. 
Scythianus,  was  he  the  originator  of  Manichceism  ?    II.  257. 
SeciSj  Christian,  their  origin  in  II.  Cent.     I.  396. — of  the  Hebraizers.    I.  396. — 
the  offspring  of  the  Oriental  philosophy  prevailing  after  the  Apostles  were 
gone.     I.  405. — How  they  could  seduce  such   multitudes,  {ibid.) — The 
Valentinian  sects.     I.  471. 
Secundus,  a  Valentinian  heretic.     I.  472. 
Senses  of  Scripture,  the  four  (literal, allegorical,  tropological,  anagogical.)  I.  368. 

— The  allegorical,  as  uniformly  followed  by  Origen.     II.  165. 
Sepulture,  denied  to  Noetus  and  his  brother.     II.  211. 
Serenus  Granianus,  Proconsul  of  Asia,  a  patron  of  Christians.     I.  297. 
Serpent  of  Paradise,  worshiped  by  the  Ophites.     I.  485. 
Severus,  Emp.  state  of  the  church  under  him.     I.  317.  II.  5,  10. 

,  a  heretic.     I.  486. 

Sibylline  Verses,  forged  by  Christians.     I.  288. 
Sign  of  the  Cross,  seen  by  Constantine.    II.  472. 
Signum  or  Signaculum,  among  Manichaeans,  what?     II.  356. 
Simeon,  bp.  of  Jerusalem,  and  martyr.     I.  294. 

Simon  Magus,  an  Oriental  philosopher.     I.  42. — The  first  of  the  Gnostics.    I. 
239.  241,  72.  (2.)— his  history.     I.  242.— Did  the  Romans  deify  him?    I. 
243.— His  doctrines.     I.  246. 
Simon  of  Cyrene,  whose  form  (says  Basilides)  Christ  assumed,  and  caused  him 

to  be  crucified  in  his  pluce.     I.  428. 
Simonians,  heretics.     I.  241,  n.  (3.) 
Simplicity,  Christian,  corrupted  by  philosophy.     I.  344. — and  especially  in  the 

Alexandrian  school.     II.  165. 
Sins,  Carpocrates  opened  a  door  for  all  sins.    I.  444 : — see  Moral. — What  sins, 
the  Novatians  would  not  absolve  from.   II.  67. — Did  they  exclude  the  trans- 
gressor from  all  hope  of  salvation?     II.  70.— Manes'  opinion  of  the  na- 
ture and  origin  of  sin.     II.  349. 
Sisters,  so  the  first  Christians  called  the  female  believers.     I.  180. 
Sixtus,  a  martyr.  (548.)  II.  91. 
Skeptic  Philosophers.     I.  34. 

Soldiers,  were  there  Christians  in  the  army  of  Marcus?    I.  313. — and  of  Dio- 
cletian?    II.  112,  113. 


GENERAL       INDEX.  509 

Solitude,  courted  by  Christians,  on  the  principles  of  tlic  Mystics,   f.  380.  II.  198. 

Son  of  God,  did  Sabellius  distinirnish  liim   from  the  Father.     II,  i220. Did 

Manes  identify  him  with  ihe  sun?     II.  296. 
Sophia,  an  ^Eon  of  Basilides.     I.  417. — and  of  Valentinus.     I.  459. 
Soul,  there  are  two  souls,  a  rational  and  a  sentient,  in  man,  said  the  Gnostics. 

I.  426,  71.  (7.) — The  Carpocratians  claimed  to  have  souls  equal  to  Cliriat's 
soul.  I.  442. — Origen's  opinion  of  the  soul.  II.  151. — Beryllus  said, 
Christ  had  no  human  soul.  II.  226. — The  world  has  a  soul  (animani 
mundi,  vel  Demiurgi,)  said  Valentinus.    I.  401. — The  soul  of  Jesus  Clirist 

II.  191. — to  which  our  souls  should  be  conformed,  (ibid.) — Return  of  souU 
to  the  world  of  light,  according  to  Manes.  II.  191. — State  of  both  purgate^ 

and  unpurgated  souls  after  death,  in  the  system  of  Manes.     II.  373. Mi 

gration  of  souls  into  other  bodies,  a  Manichccan  doctrine.     II.  374. 

Soul  of  man,  opinions  of  it  by  the  Philosophers.  I.  33,  45. — by  the  Essenea, 
I.  69. — by  Simon  Magus.  I.  246. — by  Cerinthus.  I.  251. — Its  union  witU 
God,  the  doctrine  of  the  Mystics.  I.  381- — Its  destiny  according  to  Basilidea. 

I.  417. — What  offences  it  committed  in  the  upper  world,  according  to  Ba- 
silides. I.  427,  n.  (7.)— and  Carpocrates.  I.  438.— Of  what  material  Gort 
formed  it,  according  to  Hermogenes.  I.  522,  n.  (3.) — Mystic  opinions 
of  the  soul.  II.  190. — Souls  die  and  rise  with  their  bodies,  said  the  Arabians. 

II.  242. 

Spaniards,  when  and  by  whom  said  to  be  converted.     I.  110,  n.  (3.) 

Spirit,  the  Holy,  gifts  of  to  the   Apostles.     I.  100. — Valentinus'  doctrine   of 

the  Holy  Spirit.   I.  459. — Montanus'  pretensions  to.    I.  497.— Cyprian.   II 

75. — His  offices,  according  to  the  Mystics.     II.  196. — Sabollius  held  him 

to  be  a  part  of  the  Father.     II.  215,  218. — Did  Manes  profess  himself  tho 

H.  Sp.  'i  II.  263.— His  doctrine  of  the  H.  S.  IT.  293. 
Spirit ual  sense  of  Scripture,  according  to  Origen.  II.  173. 
Statue  inscribed  Semoni  Sanco.     I.  244. 

Statues  of  the  Gods,  supposed  to  be  animated  by  th^m.     I,  16. 
Stephen,  bp,  of  Rome,  his  contest  with  Cyprian,  respecting  heretical  baptism.i. 

II.  79,  121. 
Stoics,  their  doctrines.     I.  36. 

Strangers,  opposed  to  tjTj  i^iXpolu  in  St.  John's  Epist.  who?     I.  224. 
Stremonius,  Apostle  of  die  Gauls.     II.  2. 

Study  of  human  leariiing  by  Christians,  its  propriety  debated.    I.  344. 
Substance,  according  to  Valentinus,  is  animal,  material,  spiritual.     I.  461.— 

Manes'  ideas  of  substance.     II.  275. 
fifM^en;7g-s  of  the  martyrs.  I.  319.  n. — under  Decius.  11.27. — under  Gallus.  11.75. 
Sun,  Sabellius  explained  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity  by  the  sun.    II.  220. — Did 

Manes  suppose  the  sun  to  be  the  Son  of  God?     II.  296. — and  did  he  p.ay 

divine  honors  to  it?     II.  298. 
Superstition  of  the  nations  when  Christ  appeared.    I.  12. — of  the  Jews.     I.  53. 

— Why  Suetonius  called  Christianity  malpfica  superstitio.     I.  131. — Why 

Pliny  called  it  immodica  superstitio.     I.  187. — Superstition  a  cause  of  per 

secutions.     II.  102,  414,  415 


610  GENERAL      INDEX. 

Synagogues  of  the  Jews.     I.  54. 

Syncretism,  philosophical,  of  Ammonius  Saecas.     I.  351. 
%7ij.sacte  muliort's.     II.  138. 

Synods,  originated  in  II.  Cent,  from  a  desire  of  ecclesiastical  unity.     I.  329. 
Syria,  the  native  country  of  many  Alystics  and  Gnostics,  and  why?     I.  387, 
416.  II.  199. 


Tatian,  his  Oration.     I.  394. 

Talian,  a  Valentinian  heretic,  his  dreams.     I.  481. 

Tatianists,  sect.     I.  482. 

Teachers,  Christian,  in  III.  Cent,  especially  persecuted.   II.  19,  27,  28,  74,  94,  96. 

Teaching  in  public,  was  it  free  to  all  in  the  prim,  church  ?     I.  194,  &c.  n.  (2.) 

Temples  of  the  Gods.     I.  16. — Emp.  Alex.  Severus  would  build  a  temple  for 

Christ.     II.  16. — He  permitted  Christians  to  erect  temples.     II.  17. — The 

Mnnichreans  had  none.     II.  389. — Domitian  ordered  the  Christian  temples 

destroyed.     II.  417,  422.— Christian,  built  on  mountains.     II.  (418.) 
Ten  Persecutions,  were  there  precisely  this  number?     I.  126,   n.  (1.) 
TerluUian,  on  the  excellence  of  the  Apostolic  churches.    I.  325. — on  the  power 

of  Bishops  and  the  rights  of  Christians.     I.  330. — His  writings.    I.  394. — 

His  Montanistic  heresy.     I.  498,  501,  n.  (5.) 
Testamenl  the  New,  its  canon,  when  and  by  whom  made  up.     I.  113. — Heretics 

declared  the  N.  Test,  to  be  corrupted.     II.  267.— The  Old  Test,  usually 

rejected  by  the  Gnostics,  especially  by   Saturninus,  and  why.     I.  414. — 

Manes  wholly  discarded  the  Old  Test.     II.  269. 
Thehccan  Legion,  what  to  be  believed  of  its  martyrdom.     II.  117. 
Theodotus,  extracts  from.     I.  31. — the  tanner,  denied  the  Divinity  of  Christ. 

I.  518. 
Theology :  sec  Moral,  Dogmatic,  &.C. — Philosophical,  in  III.  Cent.    II.  143. — of 

Origen.     II.  155. 
Thcophilus,  his  writings.     I.  394. 
Therapeuta:,  Essenes.     I.  73. — of  Philo.     I.  74,  n.  (1.) — were  they  Christians? 

1.75. 
Theurgy,  Ammonius  said,  Christ  wrote  books  on  it.     I.  364. 
Thitrijicati,  a  class  of  the  Lapsed.     II.  32. 
Tiberius,  Emp.  venerated  Christ.     I.  119. 
Toleration  of  foreign  reliiiions  by  the  Romans.     I.  14. — Constantino  the  Gr. 

made  all  religions  free.     II.  455,  456. 
To^«,  what,  with  Sabellius?  II.  222. 
Tongres,  (Tungrensis,)  church  of     I.  269. 
Tradition  of  the  Apostles  in  the  Romish  church  what  Irerucus  held  on  this 

matter.    I.  328. — Some  Fathers  sny,  Christ  committed  >vw(T/c,  i.  e.  an  arcane 

discipline,  to  the  Apostles.     I.  375. — Carpocratians  pretended  to  arcane 

doctrines  handed  down  from  Christ.     I.  444. 
TraditorSt  those  who  gave  up  the  sacred  books  to  Diocletian  to  be  burned.  II.  423. 


GENERALINDEX.  511 

Trajan,  Emp.  Pliny's  Letter  to  liim  expounded.  I.  18G,  n.  (1.)— Slate  of  the 
church  under  him.     I.  290. 

Treves,  church  of.     I.  269. 

TYinily,  distinction  of  the  Persons,  denied  by  Praxeas.  I.  513. — Orifren's 
opinions  on  tlie  Trinity.  II.  159.— Noetus'.  II.  210.— Sabellius'.  II.  215.— 
By  what  similitudes  Sabellius  explained  the  Trinity.  II.  220. — Beryllus' 
opinion.  II.  225.— Paul  of  Samosuta's.  II.  228.— The  Trinity  of  Manea. 
II.  292. 

T'ropldmus,  an  Apostle  of  the  Gauls.     II.  2. 

u. 

Ulpian,  the  Jurisconsult,  hostile  to  Christians.     11.  13. 

Unigeniius,  an  JEon  of  Valentinus.     I.  459. 

Union  with  God,  many  Christians  of  the  II.  Cent,  sought  it  by  Platonic  austeri- 
ties.    I.  381. 

Union  with  Christ,  (xo^m)  mystical.     II.  195. 

Unity  of  God,  how  understood  by  Noetus.  II.  210. — by  Sabellius.  II.  217.— 
by  Paul  of  Samosata.     II.  228. 

Urceus,  metaphorically  what,  with  Maniehasans?    II.  371. 


Valentinus,  the  prince  of  Gnostics,  his  history,  doctrines,  &e.  in  full.     I.  449. 
Valeria  Augusta,  a  worshiper  of  the  true  God,  favored  Christians.     II.  413. 
Valerian,  Emp.  gave  peace  to  the  Christians.     II.  73. — Afterwards  persecuted 

them.     II.  91. 
Valerius,  Apostle  of  the  Germans.     I.  269. — of  the  Gauls.     II.  2. 
Veneration  for  Christ,  out  of  Judea.     I.  95. — by  Pagans.     I.  119. — by  Rom:ui 

Emperors:  see  Emperors. — by  Philosophers.    I.  362. — by  Oracles.    I.  364. 
Versions  of  the  Scriptures  existing  in  II.  Cent,  what  and  by  whom.     I.  282. — 

The  author  of  the  Ilala,  largely  discussed.     I.  283. 
Vicar  of  Christ,  the  Roman  Pontit  is  not.    II.  89.— Origin  of  the  title.    II.  136. 
Victor,  a  Rom.  bp.  excluded  Asiatic  Christians  from  his  communion.     I.  534. 
Vienne  and  Lyons,  church  of    I.  264. — persecuted  under  Emp.  Marcus.    I.  309. 
Virginity,  spontaneous,  for  Christ's  sake.     I.  380.  ^ 

Virgins  became  Confessors.    II.  95. — of  the  Manichaeans.     II.  383. 
Virtues,  Basilides  accounted  the  Virtues  ^ons.     I.  419. 

w. 

Wars,  religious,  why  none  among  Pagans.     I.  14. 

Waler,  of  vvliat  kind,  in  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  according  to  Manes.    II.  281. 

Widows,  i.  e.  Deaconesses,  in  the  prim,  church.     I.  177,  n.  (1.) 

Wine,  when  and  why  Ciiristians  began  to  abstain  from  it  in  II.  Cent.    I.  381. — 

Manes  reprobated  it.     II.  359. 
Word,  the  internal,  or  Christ  m  us,  of  the  Mystics.     I.  306. — Origen's  opiuioD 

concerning  it.     II.  193. 


512  GENERAL      INDEX. 

World,  creation  of,  opinion  of  Suturninus.  1.410. — of  Basilides.  I.  417.— of 
Valentinus.  I.  462.— of  Origen.  II.  150.— of  Manes,  fully  stated.  II.  330. 
— The  cause  of  it.  (ibid.) — Destruction  of  it.  II.  385. — The  iwo  worlds  of 
Manes.     II.  275.— The  spiritual  world  of  Origen.     II.  175. 

Women,  the  subinlroductcc  of  the  priests.     II.  132,  n.  (2.) 

Worship,  Mosaic,  observed  by  Christ  with  limitations.  I.  88. — Christian,  in  I. 
Cent.  I.  185.— described  by  Pliny.  I.  186.— in  II.  Cent.  I.  390.—Mani. 
chccan.     II.  389. 

Writers,  Christian,  in  I.  Cent.     I.  200.— in  II.  Cent.     I.  393.— in  III.    II.  140. 

Writings  of  the  Apostles.     I.  113. 

Y^o<rra7  liy  Sabellius  denied  three  Hypostasies  in  God.    II.  222. 

Z. 

Zenohia,  queen  of  Palmyra,  favored  Paul  of  Samosata.     II.  228. 


Wo.  of  pages, 51i 

No.  of  pages  of  Contents,  «fec 12 

Total  pages  in  Vol.  2, 524 

No.  ot  pages  in  Vol,  1 561 

Total  No.  of  pages  in  Vols.  1  &  2.      ...      1,085 


Date  Due 

A 

1 

i 

1 

1 

f) 

Hlfli 


BW935.M913  1853V2 


"ary-Speer  Library 


eologica/Semi 


1    ^0^2  00073  4097 


